'Gender identity' and discrimination

Precisely. Muslim women for instance.

People never seem to take this to its logical conclusion. Partly they
just don't think, and partly they don't realise the drive behind it is highly motivated.

This person for instance.

Or you could ask how to balance the needs of a trans student versus a female student who won't attend university unless she can have single sex accomodation / bathrooms guaranteed. I've used that one with people at work before and I've seen a couple of lightbulb moments- or rather oh shit we can get sued moments

At the very least, it will raise the question of why a transwoman insists on using the ladies, when there is a gender neutral facility provided.

You may not get anywhere officially, but it does tend to unmask the pretence. And people begin to see the damage.

FurryGiraffe

If you can, set some time aside beforehand to get your argument straight.

Think of all the objections, and your rebuttal of them.

If you can link to websites and articles, so much the better (maybe in a follow up email so you can both leave a paper trail and not look too 'ranty' during the meeting.)

The main question is whether gender identity replaces sex discrimination. It's an easy question, but, like you, I suspect the answer will be unnecessarily complicated.

Because people do not want to see this for what it is.

And, no doubt, it will be mostly about toilets. There is, I believe, under the health and safety regulations still a law in place that says you must provide a female only toilet. (And a male only toilet).

You can make provision for someone who doesn't want that, but those two must be provided.

That doesn't mean, unfortunately, that you can prevent people from the opposite sex using them. But they must be provided.

It stops the irritating and automatic assumption that the women's loo will be the one to go gender neutral.

Because this is already getting out of hand everywhere. Transwomen demanding urinals in female toilets, for instance.

As far as I know, we are still, legally, sex-based protected here.

And you need a gender reassignment certificate to qualify as a woman.

But well-meaning people who want to jump the gun in order to be inclusive, are simply setting a precedent that they will not be able to come back from.

I would gen up on the law as it stands, and try to make sure they stick to it. Apart from anything else they do need to keep inside the law so they're not vulnerable to being sued.

Because there will be people who will absolutely try and exploit this.

Feels odd that discrimination, which is surely about how others view you and treat you, would be linked to something that is often non-existent and, if it does exist, can be hidden -like gender identity- as opposed to something observable like sex.
I honestly wouldn't know how to answer this survey.
I'd be tempted to overegg it and write about my feelings of sadness at being a woman and the workplace not allowing me to go and touch up my makeup several times an hour, not allowing me to wear pink sparkly dresses, not providing tissues for when I want to cry over a sad film I watched last night, not providing several lifts so I don't have to walk upstairs in heels, of not providing a hair removal station for those few hairs that start sprouting after a shave.

I hate that I'm even suggesting this, but anyway.

Just go in all wide eyed and innocent and can someone explain this gender stuff to me please?

"Ah, okay. . But what happens when this occurs? That might be tricky, hmmm?"

Hopefully, you might see it unravel before your eyes. (I hope you do, that would be awesome.)

Or, ask what exactly gender identity is please and when they say it's how you feel ask what their legal definition of a woman is please?

Gender identity and sex are in direct conflict. They cannot peacefully coexist because of this.

One cancels out the other.

I totally understand that you are in a horrible situation. Could you gently, and with some well practised naivete, just innocently ask how this might pan out in terms of when there might be a conflict?

Athena Swan started in 2005 to get more women into STEM careers, identifying where the barriers to that were and trying to get those pulled down - as it progresses, they want to pull down barriers for everyone and for all subjects so Arts & Humanities as well. So in 2015 they expanded their brief to "gender equality" for all.

I work in a dept. that currently has the Silver award and we're working towards the gold, however, as this involves taking equality to the administrative staff rather than just the academics, I think we're in for a long wait.

Xpost. Didn't realise Athena swan had succumbed. Ffs

Sex is still a protected characteristic in the U.K. Though, isn't it? Not gender- unless/until bloody Miller gets her way

If you complain that you are being passed over for promotion on the basis of your sex. They can still claim is not on the basis of your sex because look at this transwoman who is now head of department. We don't discriminate against women here.

It doesn't matter if they are minority. They would only have to be one. If fact there only has to be the idea of it.

It's all about the actual law and the wording. It's not about what people think constitutes sex discrimination.

There was a woman in Canada, I believe who needed time out to express milk at work. She was fired. She claimed unfair dismissal on the basis of sex discrimination. She lost her claim because the company maintained they would treat a man in exactly the same way (transman, don't forget man is the legal definition), and therefore it wasn't discriminatory. Ironically if the law was based on people who breastfeed and people who don't breastfeed, she would have won. But it's not, it's based on man and woman, legal definitions.

The terms man and woman no longer have a legal meaning based on biology.

Obviously, any fool can see that this is wrong. But when it comes to winning court cases, justice and being right and wrong has got nothing to do with it it's all about the actual law.

Ridiculous. I'd be tempted to write a letter to HR setting out the problems. You could probably cut and paste from mn, haha.

Maybe ask what prompted it? Great that they are looking for ways to support women and trans people but why specifically ask about gende identity as opposed to sex? Etc

Any chance of following up? Because I would ask them to define terms (like Datun says), with sources.

OP, can you ask outright whether they intend to allow discrimination in the workplace to be on the basis of gender identity, or remain on the basis of sex. Because unless one takes precedence over the other, it can't be both. They are in direct conflict.

Get them to tell you, in writing, how that will impact on sex discrimination.

I really want people (not you OP, your company) to see how this will pan out.

I think most of them think they are being inclusive, and right on, without having the smallest understanding of the real life impact.

Datun - Oh OK .. now I get it. But surely those would be in a minority? I do see the implications for the future though.

Today 12:08 YetAnotherSpartacus

I'd be really, really surprised if women did not mention issues connected with maternity ...

They might well do. But it can pointed out that a woman identifying as a man may well have those issues, and therefore it's both a male and a female issue, and thus not discriminatory on the basis of sex. And if they are only going to look at discrimination on the basis of gender identity, you're fucked.

I'd be really, really surprised if women did not mention issues connected with maternity ...