Gender instead of sex in work diversity training

"the Council does give due consideration to the wider section of the community defined by gender"

I once got over that hurdle in this same situation (though it wasn't a Council) by writing an enthusiastic paragraph about how great to extend protections to groups on top of what the Equality Act prescribes, but that I still felt that it would be better to list the actual EA2010 protected characteristics (so, to list "sex" and remove "gender"), for clarity to show that body X really knew its equality-law stuff, and then add their additional groups at the end because that way they could big up how EXTRA inclusive they were being by really highlighting the extra groups and saying they were doing it off their own bat. And I suggested that instead of just saying "gender" which is a bit woolly they should say "gender non conformity". And I also suggested that if they were doing this extending thing they could add some of the other "not EA characteristics but things that often really impact people", like poverty/social class.

I was terrifically helpful.

I can't remember what they did about the extras but "sex" did get put in which I felt was a result.

I've seen this happen too, when the tsunami of complaints to the York Theatre about their 'gender neutral' toileting resulted in it being switched back. I will now persistently do likewise whenever I come across this aberration.

I can't speak up about it in my workplace: I'd lose my job or at best be deplatformed (I work in academia). I can go as far as refusing to state my pronouns, and that's about all. For me the only way of fighting this scourge is to do so in small steps, and on the same kind of basis you detail above. Seems they listen only when it's pointed out that they are breaking the law.

Thanks for the encouragement to keep on keeping on.

The stated intention is to introduce gender/gender identity as a protected characteristic and to bring something without legal definition into being.

The big push is to gain recognition for 'non-binary' (neither male or female / both male and female)

Some policies replace sex with gender/gender identity, others add it.

Its all for the same purpose and risks potentially the same result, removal of sex-based protections.

I've been planning this at my work, but I just noticed that they are maybe getting wise as a new policy released this week uses "sex or gender" instead of omitting sex.

I always wonder if their expensive legal teams are keeping an eye on all this, in case they want to suddenly ditch Stonewall. 🤔

I've just read the ehrc submission, thank you for the link - strong stuff!

A very important point to press is that the EHRC submitted to court just yesterday that sex is immutable and binary, in biology and law.

I would say that the failure to include one of the PC might create a misleading impression that the company wasn’t following the EA.

I also think it may be indirect sex discrimination if they fail to refer to sex as women are more likely to suffer discrimination due to their sex.

Link to all the skeleton (basic outline) arguments ongoing in Maya Forstater's case

hiyamaya.net/employment-appeal/

They really are worth reading.

Public sector equality duty affects public sector only, policies and what-not.

Out of interest, are all these organisations that people are working in on this thread public sector?

I work in the private sector, admittedly less than 250 employees, and this topic never crops up.

@WrongKindOfFace. Well if sex isn’t there then you can’t have sex discrimination. One way to wipe out maternity discrimination, the sex pay gap etc, I suppose.
Yes , I see your point. However the protected characteristic of 'Pregnancy and Maternity ' would still stand.

EHRC also agreed with all Maya Forstater's QC's points of law so their skeleton argument is useful:

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

Hopefully a clickable link

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

Yes, from the Maya Forstater thread. Fairly short - well worth a read.

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

Should give some helpful ideas and pointers, hopefully.

This is your company's policy. It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

If sex is replaced with gender then it is in actual fact rewriting the equality act.

You might want to look at the submission made to the court today by EHRC in the case of Maya Forstater, for legal clarity.

Laws tend to start out by using legal definitions of words.

Sex has a different meaning to gender therefore they are not interchangeable.

As i point out above if you substitute the word sex with gender you run the risk of committing the crime of indirect discrimination.

It is not a minor nor trival issue to change the word.

It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

The legal protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 is sex, "gender" does not map to that. So yes it is. Legal meanings are usually precise, so it's necessary to keep to the exact wording so as not to break the law.

So what is your actual issue with the wording? Your company are just pointing out groups of people who are may be discriminated against. This is your company's policy. It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

RedToothBrush

Thanks for your insight. The council folded quite quickly when I mentioned the Equality Act but their first reaction was appallingly ill-informed. Sometimes I think that part of the problem is just a general incompetence as officials sheepishly follow the loudest voices around without doing their own research. And frequently fail to believe women.

R0wantrees and Ereshkigalangcleg seem to have potentially identified the case PopperUppleton. Always useful to be prepared for the future. I'm sorry the people in the training session made the environment hostile for you. Arseholes.