Drop trans guidance or face lawsuit, free speech group tells university

If non-binary gender isn't a thing, than how can it be a category requiring job protection?

I think it's important to keep our eye on why certain catagories for protection are mentioned, when other things people might be discriminated for on the job are not mentioned, even when it might be unfair of the employer.

I can't see why some vague non-thing like "non-binary" should be there.

Yep from memory he wanted to be seen as female by accessing spaces eg toilets and changing his employment records so the argument would be focused on the end point which was to be "managed/registered" as a female/woman.

He was also a bog standard MTF on a “transition journey” rather than “agender” or whatever.

I think it’s Stonewall Law if I remember rightly?

The case was Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd in 2020 (gosh that was a lifetime ago) and the Tribunal indeed held that non binary claimants have the PC of GR on the basis that “It was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum... it was beyond any doubt that somebody in the situation of the Claimant was (and is) protected by the legislation because they are on that spectrum and they are on a journey which will not be the same in any two cases.”

However it was a first tier tribunal decision and therefore not a binding precedent. A point which was lost in all the Stonewall coverage. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/non-binary/gender-fluid-claimants/5105968.article

They don't want to protect trans rights they want to remove women's rights. That's why there is such a tantrum - women have told men to get lost and the SC has dared to back the women.

It kinda, sorta, is🤨

Like a disability / pregnancy the job has to accomadate but first they have to know and there is a point where the GR clashes with other PC eg sex belief.
So the first issue is has person X the PC of GR if X has stated no propoposed /ongoing process no protection applies.

Kind of like what someone once said to me was ID into as many PC as possible and HR will manage you with a bargepole

I would be very careful about enshrining something as incoherent and flimsy and subjective as “non binary” in equality legislation.

Everyone should have protection from job discrimination. I’m not sure why people who identify as “non binary” should have it more than any other cultural subgroup like “goths” for example.

Assumption is the problem

The law said nothing about NB.

So why write policy which uses the words NB or GNC or GF.
That is a choice of the staff involved.

Part of the problem is the idea of "being inclusive of.... " and working in a regulated industry where the regulation has not yet rolled down to the staff level.

If GR = obligations and consequence the staff would want to limit the number of people within the PC and/or use very clear language to establish where their duty starts and stops. And as you say they would seek legal advice.

The questions asked would be based on the Equality Acts own terms.

And NB etc would be managed under "is proposing to undergo" but its again issue of benchmarking the appropiate group. If the staff are not sure the benchmark should be all of non-PC group create the control. Problems began when the benchmark was set as of the other sex.

The Courts said that there are 2 groups and each benchmark for controls is set as of the same sex.

And as you say a presupposes understanding of the equality law framework etc

Take this gem...
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5386944-i-need-help-taking-a-complaint-further?page=1

On your question about why the Council ask questions about ......., and why it is relevant, as part of the Public Sector Equality Duty, The City of Wolverhampton Council has a responsibility to ensure that we do not unfairly discriminate in the services we currently provide, or plan to provide.

Therefore, by asking equality monitoring questions as part of our consultations, we can break down the responses we receive and assess whether any protected characteristics will be unfairly treated because of the proposal being consulted on and plan suitable adjustments accordingly.

The Equality Act 2010 recognises ....

On your question on why the Council does not ask questions about pregnancy or maternity, the council aligns our equality monitoring questions with the Census 2021, where the only question relating to maternity was an employment-based question which wouldn’t be relevant for the Council to ask as we do not gather data on employment as part of our equality monitoring questions on consultations.

That isn't quite the same thing though. There is a difference between saying that a non-binary person can't have their gender recognised, and that they shouldn't have protection from job discrimination.

The “non binary” question has already gone to the Supreme Court re both passports and GRCs and it was rejected.

Non binary gender identity is basically completely meaningless.

That is all true, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that 'gender reassignment' isn't now generally assumed to be the PC that protects trans rights, including people who are non-binary, of whom there is a growing number.

If I were them I would be wanting to seek clarification of what the law means, as FWS did, and if they felt it necessary then campaign for a change in legislation.

However, that all presupposes understanding of the equality law framework, and a belief that basic rights to education, work, housing etc. need to be protected.

Sorry Merrymouse, misread the post.

But yes indeed,

Three out of one thousand is a tiny number, collected at time when trans ideology was probably at its highest point.

7Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

if the person

○ is proposing to undergo,
○ is undergoing or
○ has undergone

□ a process (or part of a process)
□ for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex
□ by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Can a Non- Binary etc.

1. tick Yes to all the boxes □
2. fill in one circle ○

So an objective "Objective" test

" for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex " is not the objective of the NB / GNC / GF process (whatever that is) as the person is not seeking to be recognised in life/law as the other sex.

I read these documents which really set out what's going on.
https://www.freedominthearts.com/fita-legal

The legal letter makes it clear what they are arguing:

• the guidence has a definition of 'trans' which is much broader than gender reassignment pc - including nb, gender fluid, gender non conforming. Then it treats 'trans' as synonymous with thd pc of gr.
• it ignores the possibility of conflict between this version if gebder reassignment and other pc's
• some of the advice and suggested policies would discriminate against women and ppl with religious or gender critical beliefs.
• it sets out why they think non binary does not fall within the pc of gender reassignment using recent case law. It is fws 1 and 2, the case of the non binary person Elan someone who wanted an X gender passport, and possibly this recent effort to get an nb grc.

It's worth reading it all.

I'm glad to see it. I worked in the sector many moons ago. I am glad freedom in the arts exists, and I think their position is stronger because they have helped people on 'the other side' of this debate too, putting freedom of expression first.

From the 2021 census question "to provide the first official data on the size of the transgender population in England and Wales".

A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within this group:

• 118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
• 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
• 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
• 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
• 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity

So if you assume that the 118,000 were confused by the question, a third of respondents have some kind of non-binary gender. If you include the 118,000, most trans people don't fall within the 2016 idea of a transsexual and don't identify as a man or a woman.

I don't think it helps anyone to pretend that trans means what transsexual did in 2004, or 2010 or 2016 but I do agree that laws need to be changed by parliament, not by general assumption or 'getting ahead of the law'. I expect this kind of examination would not be welcomed by advocacy organisations, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential if they genuinely want to protect trans rights.

They deliberately seek to misrepresent the law. It was never meant to include people who identify as “non binary”. In 2016 the WESC “Trans Equality Inquiry” report recommended that the law be changed to include “non binary” gender identity. The government said no but that they could be protected if people discriminated against them because they thought they were transsexuals.

There’s a thread on a case going to the European Court with a non binary person seeking legal recognition via a GRC. The Uk courts said sex is binary and to get a GRC you need to choose one sex. So arguably the EA definition of working towards a change of gender doesn’t cover NB… And other cases confirmed there wasnt a third sex. Interesting legal question but back in reality there are only 2 sexes and they can’t be changed!

However, this distinction isn't made by LGBT advocacy organisations.

I think we now need official clarification of what the law means.

The pc of gender reassignment involves working towards a change of “gender” from one to the other. Some “non binary” people may qualify ie “trans femme/trans masc ones. But not people who say they have no “gender” or are “multi gender”.

The guidelines were written by the uni in 2023

I don’t think non binary has been such a big thing as it has become since the pandemic.

Clearly it’s been hitting gp surgeries based on another thread here recently; kids wanting some hormones to slightly masculinise them etc

I’d have thought it was obvious tbh.

According to the campaigners, the university’s guidance “confuses legal definitions”, by treating the label “trans” as being synonymous with the legally protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”.

They also allege that the guidance is said to conflate the term trans with categories such as “non-binary,” “gender non-conforming,” and “gender fluid” — none of which are protected by law.

I don't think I have seen this argument before - that somebody who is non-binary does not have the PC of gender reassignment. My assumption would be that they do, but it would be interesting to see clarification.