Can't believe I'm writing this, but disappointed in JK today

My understanding is that the pc of GR protects you from discrimination when compared to someone of the same sex. So for a TIM the comparator is a man.

I suspect a man that tried to compel other employees to believe a lie e.g. a flat earther would be subject to a disciplinary process - it's the behaviour that's wrong (harassment) and would be the same for any man or woman trying to impose a belief on others.

So you can't not hire a qualified TIM but he should be treated like other men, so no access to the women's toilets and expected to do his job and abide by normal professional behaviour in the workplace (e.g. don't come in wearing domanatrix gear). There is no entitlement to special treatment, though Stonewall have been saying for years there is, so some dimwits are a bit confused even though the SC did clarify it.

Men and women are NOT an equal danger.

That's true but I don't think many people would go so far as to ban men from wearing dresses for that reason. It does seem weirdly regressive to police people's outward appearance like that.

Doesn't it make more sense for everyone to recognize that some people in dresses are actually men, instead?

Yes I would, though only for men.

If a woman wears trousers, she is not going to be dangerous to women and children who mistake her for a man.

If a man wears a dress, he very well might be dangerous to women and children who mistake him for a woman.

Men and women are NOT an equal danger.

I think what you'd probably find if it went to court is a ruling that someone's personal beliefs about their sex are largely irrelevant to the question of their right not to be discriminated against for GR;

That's rather the point I'm making: that one's belief about ones sex is severable from the PC of GR (which is all about process, as mentioned.)

that they are after all entitled to their personal beliefs and you as an employer are not entitled to demand to be privy to them.

Protection on the basis of belief extends if the belief passes the Grainger tests. I'm not entitled to be privy to them, agreed: but maybe substitude "I'm a woman" for "I'm Napoleon Bonaparte" and see how far the Grainger tests get you.

In any case the manifestation of beliefs in a workplace is a subject rich in case law. For instance I can take disciplinary action against an employee who proseltyzes their colleagues in Christian dogma.

I can see an interesting clash between a male employee who vehemently and unreasonably demands to be treated as a woman on the basis of right, and an employer who has the job of preventing that employee from harassing a GC female colleague.

I'm not sure that sexuality is a good analogy; in the case I am imagining it's not the belief but the way the belief is manifested at work that would be an issue. The same kinds of behaviour that impinged on sexuality would probably cross the line of sexual harassment regardless of which way the person swings.

Your black and white world must be so very bleak.

And of course it's your right to think that. But if you do, then logically you should be campaigning for trans-race, trans-disabled, trans-age, trans-species etc people to be protected in the sae way. If you don't see them as deserving of the same protections, that is discriminatory.

I think people like you are precisely the reason that gender reassignment needs to be a protected characteristic in law, to be quite honest.

You are arguing for strict gender presentation on the basis of sex - that women must dress in a feminine style and men only in a masculine style, on the basis of "think of the (lost) children"?

Most people would instead argue that men can wear dresses if they want; but they're not women for doing so.

I think what you'd probably find if it went to court is a ruling that someone's personal beliefs about their sex are largely irrelevant to the question of their right not to be discriminated against for GR; they are after all entitled to their personal beliefs and you as an employer are not entitled to demand to be privy to them. The onus would be on you the employer to prove you weren't discriminating on the basis of GR, and I think you'd find that extremely difficult.

It's also not clear what you think would be the functional difference between employing a trans person who does think they've changed sex vs one who doesn't - you would not be allowed to treat them differently, they'd be unlikely to behave any differently, so it seems largely irrelevant, and would likely come across as highly intrusive to interrogate them on the nuances of their beliefs about their sex.

This is coming across eerily similar to the argument I've heard from some anti-gay Christians, that of course they wouldn't discriminate against someone for being gay, it's men having sex with men that they think is wrong, so as long as the gay man is celibate, they're fine with him. How successfully do you think an employer could argue in court that they weren't discriminating on the grounds of sexuality by refusing to hire a gay man unless he is celibate?

Not read it all. But there is a problem with ALL men who are "really nice, harmless, just dressed up as a woman":

A Scottish shopkeeper did that, for years, before kidnapping and imprisoning a little girl customer, who had become accustomed to seeing her mother and other women ignoring the fancy dress. She (and mother) were 'groomed' by the familiarity into thinking men are as harmless as women, provided they are wearing dresses:

There's a reason it is illegal to dress up as a police officer, in public. Maybe, no harm is intended or planned. Maybe, it is just someone innocently travelling to a fancy dress party, or to appear in a stage play. But maybe it is not. And maybe any member of the public will be induced to trust the costume.

NAMALT, therefore ALL men must be alllowed in women's spaces, is of course seen as wrong reasoning. But NAMALT, therefore ALL men must be indulged when pretending to be women, is equally wrong reasoning.

We need to be able to tell a child to look for a lady, if they are lost. We need to look for a female, quickly discernable by appearance, if we ourselves are in trouble. All cultures at all times have differences between the clothing, hairstyle, face-paint, and so on, to enhance the ability of everyone to instantly identify the females from the males, at a glance and at a distance, for good reasons.

Kind of - one problem is that anyone who is trans-IDing can say they are "proposing to undergo gender reassignment" and that can't be disproved.

There is also an issue of the actual law being misrepresented by Stonewall et al and lots of institutions being deeply confused about what trans-IDing people have a right to under the law. But as it stands a trans-IDing person could claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment even if there is no process - by saying they propose to undergo the process.

“I don't think someone undergoing medical gender reassignment procedures is any more entitled to time off work than any other medical procedure like treating a tooth abcess or something”
It’s not about people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment being given time off over someone with a tooth abscess. But about preventing an employer from saying you can take time off for a tooth abscess but not gender reassignment.

“And yet sickness isn't a protected characteristic. You can eventually be fired if you have too much sick leave, unless it is due to pregnancy.”
Disability is a protected characteristic though and would mean an employer has to make reasonable adjustments if someone’s disability is causing them to take sick leave. If it’s not possible to make an adjustment the person could be dismissed on capability grounds.

“So again, why the asymmetrical protection for gender reassignment? Why prioritise that over any other medical needs except disability or pregnancy?”
I wouldn’t say it’s about prioritising someone with gender reassignment taking time off over someone with a different medical issue, but ensuring someone can take time off for gender reassignment reasons when they’d be able to take time off for other medical reasons. Most employers allow you to take time off for medical reasons, but it’s not hard to imagine an employer at one time saying no to taking time off for gender reassignment.

Well we're in a daft situation because we have enshrined pretending to be something you're not in law

I think this is Stonewall law, i.e. the way some people wish the law to be and not how it actually is written.

We have protected people who propose to undergo a process, are undergoing a process or have undergone a process (etc.) for being detrimentaly treated becuase of it. Nothing more and nothing less. No process - no protection.

The protections you think need to be re-written seem to arise from case law and over-interpretation in courts.

Well we're in a daft situation because we have enshrined pretending to be something you're not in law and made it a protected characteristic when that makes no sense (and the definition of "gender reassignment" is also confusing and not useful, making it even more complex).

IMO that's a mistake and needs to be fixed. It makes the law risible and in itself discriminatory (against people who want to pretend to be something they're not in other ways and have that taken seriously).

As things are, it is very difficult for employers.

I don't have any suggestions. Personally I don't think it's relevant to someone's employment as to what sex they think they are. But as far as I can see the PC of GR doesn't apply to someone's belief about their sex. If someone else doesn't want to employ a person because they believe they've changed sex, that doesn't apear to be unlawful.

You don't need case law - it's written explicitly into the Act at paragraph 13(4).

And how would you suggest employers make this distinction? Especially given employers are not allowed to subject trans employees to any additional scrutiny or questions which they wouldn't ask everyone, as that in itself could be seen as discriminatory.

I don't think someone undergoing medical gender reassignment procedures is any more entitled to time off work than any other medical procedure like treating a tooth abcess or something (in my opinion of how the law should be).

And yet sickness isn't a protected characteristic. You can eventually be fired if you have too much sick leave, unless it is due to pregnancy.

So again, why the asymmetrical protection for gender reassignment? Why prioritise that over any other medical needs except disability or pregnancy?

Employers discriminate in recruitment processes all the time. It's how you select the best candidate, by discrimination.

Unlawful discrimination would be to select the best candidate on the basis of a protected characteristic. That would be bad.

Believing you are a different sex is not a protected characteristic. The PC of GR is all about undergoing or planning to undergo a process. There are a lot of people who believe they are a different sex who have undergone no process and are not proposing to.

Then we come on to non-binary people who believe all sortts of, um, unorthodox things about what sex they are or aren't. They are not protected for their believe in their sex under the EA2010.

It is a subtle distinction - and it's important.

you can discriminate against someone for being single.

Wow. Is there case law or guidance illustrating when someone might do that?

Never mind, I found some. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/employment-law/marriage-and-civil-partnership-discrimination/

Did legislators just assume that no one ever would discriminate against the unwed?

It’s not necessarily about extra help or support, but about not being treated worse because you have transitioned. A person who is not trans will never be fired, harassed, or denied a service because they transitioned. A person who has undergone gender reassignment faces that risk if gender reassignment is not a protected characteristic.

Gender reassignment does give the right to time off for medical reasons. A non-trans person doesn’t need ‘equal’ time off.

Just on the last point I don't think that's correct. For example if a business said they only hire married couples but not cohabiting couples, I think you'd have a case against that.

Pregnancy is definitely an asymmetrical one alongside disability. There are employment protections that are unique to pregnant women beyond simply equality.

I know a lot about them because of an incident with an employer.

So would you be OK with intolerance of someone white claiming to be black, someone able-bodied pretending to have cerebral palsy and doing an impression of it, someone aged 45 pretending to be 6, someone demanding everyone agree that they're a cat? I think most people would say it's reasonable to find these things annoying, insensitive, indicative of a problem, perhaps offputting to an employer (especially if the person is going to havem fdor example, black or disabled colleagues whose identity they are claiming).

And I think if an employer did discriminate and say "I'm sorry but claiming to be black when you're not is offensive and will upset me/my employees so no they're off the list", that would be seen as reasonable and they wouldn't get into trouble.

So why is it "extraordinary intolerance" to feel the same when it's sex?

NB again, I'm not saying trans-identifying people shouldn't have jobs at all. I'm saying it's reasonable to find claiming a false identity (especially an identity you actually do have) offputting, insulting, annoying or whatever and that should be OK.

ie you get extra protection if you have it

I dont agree. Although it's never been tested in court (as far as I know) the wording of the acct is that you can't discriminate against anyone for not holding GR. To do so would still be "because of" a PC.

Disablility is special-cased: it's explicitly permitted to discriminate against someone who is not disabled - see section 13 para 3. That explicit permission isn't in the act for GR.

There are a range of cases where it is permitted to discriminate against a woman who is pregnant - for safety and health reasons, for example.

Finally marriage is very non-symmetric. In employment you can't discriminate against someone who is married, but you can discriminate against someone for being single.

The belief that gender exists objectively and measurably, and can be reassigned, for a start.