Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

So a bloke puts lipstick on and we are all supposed to assume a whole host of things that actively give him a protected characteristic? It is utterly bloody unworkable.

There is no way any discrimination in law would rest on someone having major surgery and how would you prove it either way? Genital checks are apparently frowned upon these days. It would be way too intrusive into someone’s private life and how would the person doing the discrimination know either way? And in any event you could easily say you were planning it at some point in the future. If you simply say ‘I am living as a women’, whatever that means, that is enough.

No, there is no word 'serious' in the act.

The whole thing is unworkable because it is about an idea about proposal whatever that means.

I think you are wrong about that. No one has to prove anything. You just have declare that you are a man or a women and that is it. Most people don’t actually go through any gender reassignment of any form whatsoever they just have to say what they are otherwise you would be saying male/female is only about the way you present which goes against it is a feeling in your head.

we do live differently to most members of our sex.

Hang on, is this another new addition to the definition? How is anyone else supposed to know you live differently, care about you living differently or indeed have to change their behaviour just because you want to live differently?

Happy for T people to be protected against discrimination in housing, employment etc but not for women’s spaces which must remain single sex. Also, I see no reason to change language for c0.5% of people.

Presumably you are not asking for the PC to cover non-binary or gender-fluid people either. I think some of our mutual confusion is your use of the word 'trans'. Do you mean someone with diagnosed GD who intends to undergo medical procedures to look less like their own sex and more like the opposite sex?

We keep going round in circles because this makes no sense.

Not one person has ever transitioned to the other sex. So what does 'proposing to or going to transition' mean?

You could easily say that Mr Bo Peep transitioned that day so he would be protected when he brought his whole self to work.

The whole point of this is to try and work out how this protected characteristic can be applied in real life and as we can see, none of this makes sense.

@toyl9876 And what does ‘proposing to’ do? It stops an employer from firing someone who says they are going to transition.

Do you think people who say they are 'trans' but don't intend to undergo any medical procedures should be protected under PC of GR?

Yes there was, there was 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act.

And he had a GRC. What does 'proposing to do' anything actually mean? It isn't ridiculous when you are TRYING TO APPLY THIS IN REALITY.

We all know that anyone voicing ANY DISSENT from the borg would have resulted in harassment, doxxing, stalking, sacking etc, so stop with this gaslighting.

That's the point though, the EA states 'gender reassignment' includes a proposition which doesn't even have to be made vocal. Just a thought on a man's head and everyone crumbles.

Pretending people were not 'getting ahead of the law' is bullshit, they said it time and again. Self Id was so very nearly implemented in the UK. It was us saying No and pointing out that a thought in a man's head does not make him a woman and going to talks and stickering and getting the message out there that put a stop to it. Plus the brave women that took their employers to court and to appeal and won.

I have expressed no opinion about you, personally. I know very little about you. I have not said that I would discriminate against you. I have not said that you or the way you live your life are deceptive. I assume you consider yourself to be 'trans' but I have no idea of what medical interventions you have undertaken, if any.

What I said was that 'gender affirming care' allows people to try to deceive others about their sex. This is indisputably true. It may not be the case for all 'trans' people though. I know that there are some who, even post-op, agree that they are still male and do not encourage people to think otherwise.

I don't think it is helpful to personalise the discussion too much.

Well, again, they didn't. They let a man in his 50s walk round work, in a venue where schoolkids came almost every day of the week, dressed as Little Bo Peep for as long as he wanted to.

If the employer doesn't have a dress code, or uniform, they would have to fall back on a clause about 'professional behaviour' or similar. There is bound to be something in the employee handbook or contract or whatever.

It would be very unusual (and sloppy) of an employer to have nothing in place to deal with piss-takers or disgruntled employees.

What if they didn't, which they didn't?

One at least was put in there as the result of considerable lobbying and pressure. The others, I don't know but I think they mostly had laws about them already and the idea was to put all the regs in one place for ease of reference and use.

Wikipedia lists "the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting against discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation, age, and religion or belief" as having been amalgamated.

If there was a dress code at work, it would be a matter for line management and HR to address: being unprofessional or not adhering to the dress code.