TNBI job ad for Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support

I assume that being gender fluid or intersex would create problems too. This is all about virtue signalling. I hope they get someone who can do the job of supporting others.

But how could anyone prove they were non binary? You’d have to have a definiation of non binary first. If I’m a bloke who likes make up and glitter am I non binary or just a bloke who likes sparkly stuff?

As illegally expressed you cannot apply for this even if you are Suzie Green with decades of experience. This job is not about ability, skill or track record. Most job adverts have some interest in these.

Asking for people with experience of working with these groups is not a problem. It's qualification for the job. They want to set up a 'peer-designed and peer-led space'. Fine.

Claiming that they are only going to appoint people who are in these categories (discrimination against all others) because 'exempt under the Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9' is untrue. Misunderstands the law. It's not necessary to do that as they are clear that they want someone who has links to and can speak for this community.
They are discriminating illegally because they are saying 'No others than these special people can apply'. It's also a bit crazy if they want the best and most effective person as I would assume you can advocate for and facilitate for these groups without being one of them. No allies need apply.

You really think this will stop TIM accessing women’s groups? Brighton rape crisis centre had trans inclusive groups and one not. The trans community got the female only one shut down as it was “not inclusive”. Leaving women with no space. ERC employed a man as their chief exec in a female only role. He told women wanting single sex support to “reframe their trauma”. So they had trans inclusive groups but still demanded access to women’s spaces. And now have the audacity to say they want trans only groups. Can you understand why some find this advert galling?

Regardless of whether it’s correct in law, you’d have to be a real cunt to apply for that job if you didn’t have the preferred characteristics. Or to frustrate their recruitment process with FOI, legal challenges etc. Just because TRAs have done it to women over and over doesn’t mean two wrongs make a right. These people having their own space is a step towards getting trans identified males out of womens spaces and I support that. This is a turning point where we can frustrate their process when they are finally moving towards third spaces and prove we just hate transpeople or we can choose to live and let live and let the law catch up with however it needs to change to let third spaces happen.

I wouldn’t normally but the fact is trans people claim discrimination if an ad for a job is women only but are allowed to state who can do jobs for trans groups. ERC even appointed a biological male to a female only job because he claimed to be a woman and they would not tell him no.

TNBI isn't a protected characteristic.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic.

Non-binary is not a protected characteristic.

Having a DSD is not a protected characteristic, unless it's included under disability, but I don't think most people with DSDs would be classed as disabled using the definition in the EHRC guidance.

In the Equality Act, a disability means a physical or a mental condition which has a substantial and long-term impact on your ability to do normal day to day activities.

This seems fine to me too, both legally and morally.

Who is the hypothetical person who is being discriminated against? Leaving aside their hypothetical dickishness in applying for the role, they'd need to identify a PC that they have on the basis of which they're being disadvantaged. But since none of non-trans, non-NB, or non-intersex are PCs that seems unlikely to succeed.

I can’t see an issue with this.

I think the shaky ground would be:
People without the PC of having a DSD because some of them can apply (if they instead have the PC of GR) and some can't.
And
People without the PC of GR because again some of them can apply but some can't.

What they should do is just say "only for non binary applicants" which as it isn't a PC (like being care experienced, or having twins) can be the basis for a group of people with no discrimination.

I think this is better than the alternative which is men in women's groups. Trans identifying males probably do need a lot of support, they just don't need to get it with women in female only spaces.

I'm not sure that there's a problem with this, legally. Being not TNBI isn't a protected characteristic, so they can preferentially employ a TNBI counsellor without relying on Schedule 9 at all, and therefore without needing to meet its requirements (legitimate and proportionate aims etc).

For it to be lawful to exclude applicants in preference to to a particular group, that group has to have a shared protected characteristic, or all share more than one characteristic. (eg disabled females)

None of the identified list has as a matter of law, has a protected characteristic and certainly even if they did it is not a shared characteristic.

So at the first hurdle it fails because it does not fall within sch 9 part1.

Even if it did it would have to be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

Since the definitions are seeking an unprotected ideological point of view of the applicant, it is completely unlawful

I support their need to have someone like them working in a centre designed for them. Just as I support the need for female workers for female centres
The only thing I don't understand fully is the addition of intersex. Presumably they're meaning intersex people who live as the opposite sex. But there are many intersex people, especially in Western countries, who live as their sex.