Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

The broad wording isn't arbitrary; the point is to provide protection from discrimination at all stages of transition, and to acknowledge that not everyone can or wants to transition medically along the same process.

Transition from what to what?

A man transitions to be not a man anymore?

Thats what is wrong with the PC. It suggests that the man protected by GR is no longer a man. But he still a man isn't he? He should get all of the protections any man had, but should not be treated as if he is not a man.

I agree. I was thinking about the UK specifically, but FIFA seems to be a whole different ball game (😎)

Except changing it to "has undergone" would of course mean people who are waiting for treatment (NHS waiting lists are 2+ years long just for a first appointment) would have no protection from discrimination in the meantime. Nor would an employer or service provider necessarily be aware if someone has or has not undergone any process (and nor can they ask, given this is private medical information) so would not know if the protected characteristic applies or not - presumably they'd just have to wait and see if they get sued. The broad wording isn't arbitrary; the point is to provide protection from discrimination at all stages of transition, and to acknowledge that not everyone can or wants to transition medically along the same process.

What is different about Eddie Izzard compared with any other man wearing the same clothes? Would someone not employ Izzard but employ my husband if he presented in the same way? Why is Izzard protected and not my husband?
If your husband was not employed because they thought he has undergoing gender reassignment he would be protected by discrimination by perception.

That's why men in women's sports gets such traction.

Still nowhere near enough, though. I just read a FB post asking, with the World Cup on, will FIFA be ready to make sure only natal females play in the Women’s World Cup in 2027? Don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why is a man who wants to be treated as if he is a women protected?

The diagnosis is that he feels distress with the knowledge that he is a man. Not that he is actually a woman.

Any treatment would not change his sex.

So why is the GRA and PC of GR treating these men as if they are not men?

What is different about Eddie Izzard compared with any other man wearing the same clothes? Would someone not employ Izzard but employ my husband if he presented in the same way? Why is Izzard protected and not my husband?

I’m struggling here to understand what you believe. What is it about gender reassignment being a PC that you think takes away from other people?

We shouldn't underestimate how the perception of unfairness can cause real division in society. Maybe particularly so in the UK, where we pride ourselves on a sense of fair play. That's why men in women's sports gets such traction.

That law recognises that gender reassignment is a distinct vector for discrimination that isn’t neatly covered by the other protected characteristic.

As far as this is concerned, I think the law is an ass.

Reading the debates in Parliament on the passage of both the GRA and the Equalities Act, it is clear that many legislators in both the Commons and the Lords would agree with me.

Both laws passed in the form that they did because they were steamrollered through by a Government with a large majority - not because they are good law or make sense.

"or other attributes of sex"

Currently the only proof of "living in the acquired gender" that is required for a GRC (in addition to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria) is documentation, eg. of change of name and/or Title on household bills.

It is hard to imagine that the PC of GR under the Equalities Act could require more evidence than is required to obtain a GRC under the Gender Recognition Act.

For example, under the current Equalities Act system, all a person would have to do to be covered by the PC of GR is to state that they, for example, intend to ask their Utilities Company, etc. to change the name on their account.

Although I doubt that they would even need be that specific. Probably just,

"Hey boss! From the start of next week I intend to be LiViNg As A WoMaN!"

"OK. Contact HR and give them your new name and they will change your Employment Record. Anything else we can do to help you with this?"

Under the more restricted system you propose, all they would need to do is state that they have changed the name on their Gas Bills, etc.

Or just more vaguely state that they are NoW LiViNg As A WoMaN.

Or man, as might be the case.

You are saying that it is currently easier for "trans people" to bring a claim than for anyone else to bring a claim. In which case the current system is inherently unfair in that it privileges "trans people" above all others.
That’s not what I was saying at all. Bringing a discrimination claim on the basis of gender reassignment is the same ‘easiness’ as any other protected characteristic. That law recognises that gender reassignment is a distinct vector for discrimination that isn’t neatly covered by the other protected characteristic. I’m saying removing gender reassignment as a PC will put trans people at a disadvantage compared to other people and that is what would actually be unfair.

It wouldn't be such a very stupid proviso, certainly. But I think that is not quite enough.

"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."

Planning and having started in a very minor way to do something are not the same as having done that thing, so perhaps it would be better to cut the cackle and get to the horses. Also, since you cannot change sex, "reassigning the person's sex" is a nonsense and needs correcting, particularly when talking about "gender reassignment":

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person has undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning the person's gender by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Just growing your hair, putting on a skirt and calling yourself Maisie (while also wearing a beard) really ought not to be protected with the full force of the law falling on anyone who titters about it.

All that would do is make it harder for trans people to bring a discrimination claim.

You are saying that it is currently easier for "trans people" to bring a claim than for anyone else to bring a claim. In which case the current system is inherently unfair in that it privileges "trans people" above all others.

That unfairness would be removed by removing the PC of GR. "Trans people" would then be on an equal footing with other people who might wish to make a claim for one or more of the following:

1. Sex Discrimination by Perception
2. Sexual Orientation
3. Disability Discrimination
4. Belief Discrimination

If we’re covered in the same way by the other characteristics, what difference does it make to leave gender reassignment as a PC?

Because the PC of GR:

a) would be redundant

• and, as you have yourself suggested,

Is it just the concept of ‘proposing to undergo’ that you object to? If the PC was limited only to those who are transition, would this be ok?

quite - we would need to establish an objective standard of what is gender conformity to measure if someone is non conforming.

I am wearing jeans and a white t-shirt today. Am I gender non conforming today as I am not wearing a dress?

I didn't for a moment think that you were! I simply realised that it isn't about what is actually the case, it is about what the abusive person thinks is the case, so worrying about what's actual is wasting time.

As though a landlady mistakenly thought someone in the sixties was Irish and refused to rent out a room to him because of this, when in fact he came from Aberdeen. The prejudicial result to him would be the same even though the landlady had made a mistake.

I wasn't criticising you. Sorry if it came across that way.

I'll admit to having not the faintest idea whether Smith, Jones, Brown and so on are RC names or not. I am English, which might mean that I miss the NI experience here.

Of course, whether a person actually is of a particular religion or not doesn't actually matter, thinking about it, because it's if they are discriminated against on the grounds of the discriminator's belief as to their religion that counts, isn't it. Which makes my whole argument pointless; sorry for wasting anyone's time.

The argument that if we dont have the PC of GR, we shouldn't have the PC of religion, is ignoring our history.

For centuries we have known who are catholics and who are protestant based on our names. We don't have to be practicing to be discriminated against.

I think perhaps the definition ought to be regarding what is happening at the time rather than what might be going to happen in a nebulous future. That is, the religion or belief should be a present religion or belief, not one which a person might decide to embrace in a few years' time. In the same way, pregnancy is something that is happening at the time and ceases to be a protected characteristic when the birth (or miscarriage) has taken place, at which time other laws take effect; marriage is what is the case at the time and presumably ceases to protect the individual in the event of divorce or separation; race is what is the person's condition at the time and for the foreseeable future; sex is what is present immutably at the time and until death; sexual orientation is what is happening at the time; age is the person's current condition not what they may experience in the future (or not, if they are run over by the Clapham omnibus). It would be absurd for me to be protected under this Act on the grounds that I assert that I might break my leg or become blind in the future, would it not?

We would be having a different conversation if the PC was of gender non conformity. But for that to make sense, a man would have to claim discrimination for being a GNC man or being perceived as a GNC man.

What the current law is suggesting is that a man could be discriminated against if they have to use the toilets or changing rooms with any other man.

Toilets and changing rooms are separated by sex, not gender. A GNC man doesn't need separate facilities to gender conforming men. Neither does a man who has reassigned his gender.

Somewhere in the PC of GR we are protecting men from being treated as men.

All that would do is make it harder for trans people to bring a discrimination claim. Right now we have the catch-all category of gender reassignment discrimination, but in your world we’d have to shoehorn the situation to fit one of the existing characteristics.

If we’re covered in the same way by the other characteristics, what difference does it make to leave gender reassignment as a PC?

Should we also get rid of religion and belief as a protected characteristic? You have to rely on the person being honest and it can’t be proven either as it’s in their mind.

As others have suggested, there is no need for a special protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment when unfair discrimination would be due to one or more of the following, which are all already covered by other Protected Characteristics:

1) Sex Discrimination by Perception

• for the vanishingly few people who mimic the opposite sex so successfully that they may actually be mistaken for the opposite sex.

• because homophobia is the real reason for a lot of prejudice against "trans people" - particularly lesbophobia, affecting the majority of females who attempt to present as male, and homophobia affecting HSTS perceived to be "effeminate gay males".

• physical issues requiring time off work for treatment of (self-imposed) medical problems but time off for purely cosmetic procedures should be excluded, in the same way that no one should expect to be given paid sick leave or "special leave" to get a tattoo or a piercing
• detransition treatments would be covered as medical issues arising from iatrogenic harm
• mental health issues, to the same extent as any other employee

• where this does not impinge on the rights of others, eg. pressure on others to use wrong-sex pronouns would not be covered.

The concept of "reasonable accommodation" would apply under Disability Discrimination and would prevent employers being bullied or coerced into believing that they have to capitulate to egregiously excessive demands.

For example, it would obviously not be reasonable to "accommodate" people with "Multiple Personality Disorder" aka "Dissociative Identity Disorder" by allowing or enabling them to have all their "alters" manifest in the workplace with different names, sexes, skills, personalities, etc. The same would apply to people who claim to be "gender fluid" and who are currently permitted by some insane Police Forces to have two "gender identities" with different warrant cards, numbers, names and uniforms - "because trans".

I think that many who are sceptical of the value of a PC of GR could be forgiven for thinking that the impact of having a separate Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment does not seem a million miles away from Family Guy's, "Do whatever you want all the time".

No one can change their sex. So no one can be protected while they undergo sex reassignment.

The PC of GR is to protect men while they pretend to be women. And the definition of 'woman' is whatever that man wants it to be.