Telegraph: No 10 drafts laws to ban children from changing gender in school

Yes, we need the best solidly lawful guidance they can produce right now.

Reshuffle coming up. Sunak knows the stakes. If he doesn't move Keegan out and put Badenoch or Cates in, or puts a yes man like Shapps in, then we know his heart isn't in it.

Right now this is all that matters re things that the Tory govt can do. He has no traction on inflation etc, and his migration aims depend solely on the courts.

This and this alone he has agency on.

Just found this article on the DM, the Proud Trust I think

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12319203/Mother-shocked-11-year-old-autistic-sons-sex-education-classwork-pushing-trans-ideology-boy-decide-girl-adding-talks-masturbation.html

Wtf is Keegan playing at! She needs to get a move on or get out of the way.

Sexism. Because she doesn’t conform to sex stereotype.

I mean, I agree what's at play is essentially a sexist impulse, but it's more complicated than that legally. You'd have to prove that a man wouldn't be treated the same, and that is complicated by the fact that anyone without the PC of gender reassignment wouldn't have the particular combination that the hypothetical boss is objecting to. If you point at a man and say, you're not treating him like this, the answer is no, but he isn't confusing our customers with his sexual ambiguity. If the comparator is a woman, the answer is the same. So while you can argue that this is still discrimination on the grounds of sex, it is much less clear cut than being able to isolate the PC of gender reassignment in itself.

I just clicked the link and got 404 not found.

A Whitehall source said that one option being considered is to amend Section 7 of the Equality Act (Gender Reassignment) by stating that it only applies to people with a gender reassignment certificate.

But we can't ask to see a GRC. So will they stop changing the sex marker on official documents and birth certificates without one?

Sexism. Because she doesn’t conform to sex stereotype.

Also, for example, how about a hypothetical female detransitioner being told she can't do front-of-house in hospitality because her boss says, "You know, nothing personal, it just makes people uncomfortable that you've got a man's hairline and voice but a woman's body"? That's not exactly sexist, on the assumption a MtF would be treated the same, and nor are her physical attributes a disability - but it should be protected against. What would her comparator be, if not a woman without gender reassignment?

Are you saying his because some professions are so male dominated there would be no woman to compare to, or that in male dominated professions the women would probably also wear trousers, so a man wanting to wear skirts couldn’t find a female comparator to claim sex discrimination where his is being denied wearing skirts to work?

Both/either, I suppose. Obviously I am not saying that it would definitely be sex discrimination if a man wasn't allowed to wear a skirt, it's just an example to highlight the problem JustWaking was responding* *to. You would have to find a female comparator who was comparable in every way, including the factors which would previously have been covered by "gender reassignment", to prove that he was being treated differently. And that is much harder than finding a male who is comparable in all ways except "gender reassignment".

...I think. I may be wrong. 😁

I don't disagree @Heliotroper it's like being between a rock and a hard place. Starmer seems to have been captured by the extreme anti women lobby.

I am not Tory but right now they look like the only party cable of doing anything. Starmer is in a position where he is afraid to speak and when the Tories do he just accuses them of stoking a culture war.

in some professions that would be harder than finding an appropriate male comparator without the PC of gender reassignment.

Are you saying his because some professions are so male dominated there would be no woman to compare to, or that in male dominated professions the women would probably also wear trousers, so a man wanting to wear skirts couldn’t find a female comparator to claim sex discrimination where his is being denied wearing skirts to work?

The comparator for a male trans person would be another male, not a female.

At the moment it would be, as the PC is gender reassignment. But the point JustWaking is making, as I understand it, is that if you got rid of that you would have to make a claim for sexist discrimination, and that would require someone of the opposite sex as a comparator. E.g. if you were a male wearing skirts and being discriminated against for it, you would have to find an appropriate female comparator who also wore skirts to prove that you were being treated less favourably. And in some professions that would be harder than finding an appropriate male comparator without the PC of gender reassignment.

I also agree with her broader point about legislating for the real world, and not making rules and hoping human nature catches up - the latter has a lot in common with the "men and women should be treated equally, let's pretend they already are" school of "feminism". (Not suggesting they're equivalent, but I think there's a common strain of hopeful idealism which doesn't work for e.g. drafting legislation.)

There is unfortunately lower representation of women in some areas (especially senior roles) and they are paid less than men in the same roles.

This could leave a MtoF trans person without a female comparator to prove discrimination. And any comparator is probably themselves already being discriminated against - so the bar is lower already.

The comparator for a male trans person would be another male, not a female.

It doesn’t make sense though does it?

‘TP’ are only unfairly discriminated against for:

1. Gender non-conformity and defying sex stereotypes. This is sex discrimination.
2. Homosexuality or presumed homosexuality. This is discrimination relating to sexual orientation.
3. Neurodiversity or mental illness. This is disability discrimination.
4. Belief in genderism/queer theory. This is discrimination based on religion or belief.

Whilst that is absolutely logically true in a world where all discrimination is successfully prevented, I think it's complicated in our imperfect world by how embedded sex discrimination is in our society.

There is unfortunately lower representation of women in some areas (especially senior roles) and they are paid less than men in the same roles.

This could leave a MtoF trans person without a female comparator to prove discrimination. And any comparator is probably themselves already being discriminated against - so the bar is lower already.

Yes, that is incredibly unfair to women. But it isn't a race to the bottom. And I don't think it's reasonable to make fairness to Trans people depend on fairness to women being achieved first. (Equally, we won't let fairness to women depend on fairness to Trans people being achieved first - hence women's sports must be protected even if there isn't a solution for Transwomen yet.)

I think Trans people should be protected from any genuine discrimination. So Transwomen need to be able to use men as a comparator, which means gender reassignment needs to be a separately pc.

I really hope you're wrong.
Shame though it's the tories doing it. Another way to divide the vote.

Also, what JustWaking said. * *

There is no need for a separate protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ without enshrining sex stereotypes in law, which is sexist.

I thought this too, but someone pointed out to me that there are situations where someone is in the correct single-sex space, but still needs to be protected from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment - e.g. a transwoman being turned away from a "Man Shed", or indeed a transman being discriminated against within maternity care. The imposition of any rule or culture within a single-sex space can't be legally sex discrimination, I don't think, and it could still serve to exclude people who are trans-identified. As you say, it's arguable that it's discrimination on the basis of belief but I think that's tenuous (not all people with GRCs believe in gender ideology, and a defence could argue that the culprit knew that and made no assumption about the trans person's beliefs) and it would require test cases to establish. And it would apply to trans people who are in need of, or prefer to use, the correct single-sex spaces, which they have every right to access. So I think it does confer some kind of genuine protection, as it should - it's much better to strengthen the other protections and be clear about conflicting rights than take a step which can (with some reason) be seen as "rolling back trans people's human rights".

I think it's a desperate attempt to stop the loss of votes in the next election

As pp have said, changing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to only apply to people with a GRC would embed GRCs much more firmly, and probably push us towards Self ID.

It also seems regressive for Trans people.

I think they should:
1.Change the Equality act to clarify that sex means biological sex

1. Produce guidance that Equality for the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment means being treated equally to someone of the same biological sex but without the pc of gender reassignment (NOT being treated as if they were the opposite sex)
2. Get rid of GRCs, which are pointless and the root of all this confusion

As for this article masking by election defeat it barely touched the sides. No one really would have clocked it or cared

The Uxbridge story is dominating anyway

My take is there is talking on this but no consensus yet

Badenoch and Cates are up against Keegan

There’s also a reshuffle looming and some voices will be prioritised. The other day Badenoch was mentioned as someone who would do well

The Telegraph was a non Kemi leak, hence her Tweet

I’m glad it’s being talked about. I hope it goes the way I’m after