Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Should "Queer" be a protected characteristic in the Equality Act?

43 replies

IwantToRetire · 23/05/2025 19:03

Mock Amendment to the Equality Act 2010

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill

Clause 1 – Addition of 'Queer' as a Protected Characteristic
In Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010, after Section 12 ("Sexual Orientation"), insert:

Section 12A – Queer Identity

  • A person has the protected characteristic of queer identity if they identify with or are perceived to embody sexual orientations, gender identities, or expressions that do not conform to conventional heterosexual, cisgender, or binary norms.
  • The protected characteristic of queer identity includes, but is not limited to, individuals who identify as non-binary, genderqueer, pansexual, asexual, or who reject fixed identity labels altogether.
  • The expression of queer identity includes non-normative presentations of gender, sexuality, and relationality, where such expressions may give rise to differential treatment, harassment, or discrimination.

Excerpt from Government Consultation Paper: "Expanding Equality—Inclusion of Queer Identity in Equality Protections"

1. Introduction

This consultation seeks public and expert input on a proposed amendment to the Equality Act 2010, to recognise "Queer Identity" as a protected characteristic. This proposal acknowledges the social reality that many individuals experience discrimination based on non-normative expressions of gender and sexuality, which may not be fully encompassed by existing categories such as "sexual orientation" or "gender reassignment".

2. Conceptual Framework

As social theorist Judith Butler notes, “categories of identity are never merely descriptive, but regulatory and exclusionary.” The term queer has historically functioned both as a slur and as a form of resistance—a way of naming oneself outside normative frameworks of sex, gender, and desire. The very elasticity of the term gives it power: it is not fixed, but capacious.

This amendment does not aim to crystallise “queer” into a rigid category, but to recognise the risk and vulnerability that accompany non-normativity. As society evolves, law must acknowledge that identity is not always linear, static, or legible within binary frames.

3. Legal Implications

Recognising queer identity as a protected characteristic would provide explicit legal coverage for individuals whose lived realities fall outside current legislative definitions. This includes:

  • Non-binary and genderfluid individuals who may not medically transition.
  • Individuals who reject traditional sexual orientation labels.
  • People who face discrimination not because of what they are, but because they visibly refuse or subvert social norms of gender and sexuality.

4. Questions for Consideration

  • Should "queer identity" be understood as a distinct protected characteristic, or should existing categories be broadened instead?
  • What are the risks of institutionalising a term that derives its power from resistance and fluidity?
  • How can statutory language balance clarity and inclusivity without foreclosing the multiplicity of queer lives?

Reflection

Adding “queer” to the Equality Act forces legal systems to grapple with what law often resists: ambiguity, instability, and refusal. The irony is that queer may only gain legal recognition by becoming what it resists—a stable, nameable category.

But this doesn’t have to be a contradiction. It could be an act of strategic essentialism (à la Spivak): using identity categories to gain rights, even while knowing they’re socially constructed.

OP posts:
AllProperTeaIsTheft · 23/05/2025 19:21

No.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 23/05/2025 19:21

Hell no

Davros · 23/05/2025 19:20

Behave!

CoughCoughLaugh · 23/05/2025 19:19

No.

FortyElephants · 23/05/2025 19:18

Absolutely the fuck not.

MrsTerryPratchett · 23/05/2025 19:18

BedBathAndBeyonce · 23/05/2025 19:14

I demand the time spent reading the OP back.

Very good luck to you with that!

Fluffyholeysocks · 23/05/2025 19:18

No. I would struggle to understand how someone who is 'genderfluid' would be protected - its not by definition 'stable'.

Igmum · 23/05/2025 19:16

Oh FFS 🤦‍♀️

If Queer encompasses everything that doesn’t strictly conform to a norm it will probably encompass everything which means it really isn’t viable as a legal category.

i think I want to retire too.

CombatBarbie · 23/05/2025 19:15

Let's remember queer used to be a negative connotation until the last few years. So no.

ohdelay · 23/05/2025 19:15

How is this relevant to the law? Unless the law wants to ask them out and needs to know if they're in with a chance? Meaningless nonsense for narcs.

letsallchant · 23/05/2025 19:15

Please confirm this is a joke and no one's seriously suggesting this. It's so hard to tell these days.

WarriorN · 23/05/2025 19:14

Nope

BedBathAndBeyonce · 23/05/2025 19:14

I demand the time spent reading the OP back.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 23/05/2025 19:14

Fuck no. Queer is meaningless. Usually just spicy straights with blue hair.

TimeForATerf · 23/05/2025 19:13

Hello Sally Hines.

ILoveBrum · 23/05/2025 19:08

No.

Pixilicious1 · 23/05/2025 19:04

No it shouldn’t. Happy to help.

EmpressaurusKitty · 23/05/2025 19:04

You say ‘mock amendment’ - this is a joke?