There is no discussion of “misgendering” in the Equality Act 2010. Just for any lurkers.

Touché 😂

Other posters have cited the exact protected characteristic, which is a little more complex. It would strengthen your case to refer to actual law. Quite a few people here are trying to help you with this.

(Having trouble posting this. Hope it doesn't post several times...)

This is for @DetectiveDouche The quote got lost in the posting problems, sorry.

You're welcome :)

Mumsnet appears to represent it as 'wrong' to be trans.

I disagree. What MN represents as wrong, is precisely what you agreed is not possible: for sex to be changed. And so logically, in matters where sex is paramount, MN wants sex to be considered, not gender.

and for it to be 'ok' and 'correct' to refer to such people by their dead pronouns.. as if they lived experience and/or trauma is entirely meaningless

GC people don't live by the tenets of gender ideology, so you can't expect them to follow those tenets. No more than you can expect an atheist to live by Catholic articles of faith. An atheist doesn't try to insult or hurt a Catholic by refusing to share their faith; they just live their own truth. So do GC people by keeping sex where it belongs and refusing to give any weight to gender presentation. They are not trying to hurt trans people or anything.

It's part of the Equality Act 2010. Being trans became an explicitly protected characteristic on the 1st Oct 2010

Cynic!

😁

Grey rock, peeps

No, I don’t buy it. I don’t think Douche is “thinking it through” at all, call me a cynic.

What are protective laws?

And... Eh?

DD:

...it also means that people who feel like it cannot continue to insist on referring to someone as he when they identify as she or she when they identify as he. That's simply not okay regardless of someone else's opinion about it and the law says so.

DD:

...NOT what I said... I said that being trans has protected status and you can't legally abuse somebody for it. What is so hard to understand about that?

Please show us the law that says that

no amount of saying it's wrong to make people pretend is going to change that.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The law no longer sees it that way

What on earth are you on about?

I'm speaking from the stand point of the definition of a protected characteristic... in this instance.. being a trans person. Sorry, not sorry that you seem a little irritated by this. 🤣

Yes I'm referring to Douche's statements:

"Obviously, I've been fact checking because you lot are good"

"This is actually very well articulated and provides food for thought and you managed it all without condescension. I'm shocked I do declare!!"

(Though it wasn't clear who these were responses to in particular, if anyone)

I think Douche is trying to think it through, which is great. I also know my views on sex and gender have changed and continue to change when people make me think and make good points. Debate is good for all of us IMO.

91: The question is whether the Tribunal was correct to consider that the existence of a GRC means that the Claimant is not entitled in any circumstances to refer to a trans woman holding such a certificate as a man.

94: there is nothing in the Act that requires a person acting in any private capacity to refer to a person’s UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ -46- A B C D E F G H acquired gender or to refrain from referring to a person’s gender before it became the acquired gender.

97: Although s. 9, GRA refers to a person becoming “for all purposes” the acquired gender, it is clear from these references in decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal, that this means for all “legal purposes”. That the effect of s.9, GRA is not to erase memories of a person’s gender before the acquired gender or to impose recognition of the acquired gender in private, non-legal contexts is confirmed by the comments of Baroness Hale in R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] 1 WLR 4127 (SC).

99: The effect of a GRC, whilst broad as a matter of law, does not mean that a person who, like the Claimant, continues to believe that a trans woman with a GRC is still a man, is necessarily in breach of the GRA by doing so; the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not

Etc.

Night. Much love 🤣

The law in the UK relies on the visibility of sex to protect transpeople.

The end.

Goodnight.

Speaking of what may help...

Clauses 91 onwards of the below clarify where you're going wrong. Much of the rest, too, to be honest.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

Pretending isn't kind. It's a lie.

A lie that harms the very people it claims to help.

It's like upon lie upon lie, until you have told so many lies the lie collapses under its own weight because reality whispers really quietly

"Boo"

And then someone lies again and claims that instead of reality whispering boo, what actually happened was some old crone on MN threatened them with a chainsaw with death and erasure from history by mad raving witches and it was all JKRowlings fault because she wore blue today.

Because this is how divorced they've become with the real world and become immersed in this shit pile of lies that just can't help but self replicate with every single next statement.