Equality Act and gender reassignment

[OSU]

Hi, posting here for fast responses. Am doing some compulsory online equality training and it says the Equality Act 2010 covers individuals who are going through or propose to go through any process or part process which changes their gender. I know this is correct. However it goes onto say: after a recent landmark tribunal (doesn't say which one or when) people whose genders lie outside of the male and female categories are also protected by the Act. This includes people who identify as non-binary or gender fluid.

I cannot find in the Act any amendments or new provisions for this. Is this correct training?

It goes onto say under sex and sexual orientation that the Act covers individuals who identify as non-binary or gender fluid and their perceived or actual sexual orientation or that of their associates. Again no reference to this in the actual equality act

That sounds very TRA. The decision they are referring to was Jaguar Landrover, the complainant was an MTF not "gender fluid" or what people would understand as "non binary" and it wasn't a binding decision, it was just a one off employment tribunal. It wasn't appealed by JLR because the male person had a good case in terms of harassment.

A lot of these guidelines are just taken word for word from trans rights activist orgs.

The perceived element is correct but that has always been the case. So if you discriminate against someone because you think they have a protected characteristic when in fact they don't, you still discriminated illegally.

Thank you!

It is right that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was found to cover non-binary people. The case law is Taylor vs Jaguar Land Rover - court case here - it's always better to read the actual judgements rather than the mumsnet interpretation s.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f68b2ebe90e077f5ac3bb5a/Ms_R_Taylor_V_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Ltd_-1304471_2018-_judgment.pdf

It's not a binding decision. By all means read it. People on mumsnet have had these conversations many times and often have a much more informed understanding than most internet posters.

It's not "case law", it's not a high enough court for that.

This article explains it from a gender critical feminist perspective:

a-question-of-consent.net/2021/01/02/taylor-v-jaguar-landrover-a-landmark-case-or-losing-sight-of-the-landmarks-of-reality/

and here's a couple of legal opinions
https://www.brethertons.co.uk/site/blog/gender-fluid-persons-protected

https://www.lambchambers.co.uk/latest-news/taylor-v-jaguar-land-rover-limited/

see also Castellucci
https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2024-news/nonbinary-us-citizen-granted-permission-to-appeal-ruling-over-gender-recognition-certificate/

The training course states that the Equality Act has been changed to include gender fluidity and non-binary as protected within both gender reassignment and also sex and sexual orientation definitions. I cannot see any amendments to the Act that mention this.

I believe the training has also confused sex with gender.

I cannot see any amendments to the Act that mention this.

There haven't been. The claim by trans activists is that it was always meant to be the case.

Jaguar Landrover was about a male who was "transitioning" in the commonly understood sense. You are protected by gender reassignment when you start your "transition" to the opposite sex.

So Taylor was a MTF who expected to be treated like a woman. Not someone claiming to have no "gender" at all, or something other than male or female.

As the article I posted says:

The employment tribunal was keen on grand gestures – comparing Taylor to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and rewriting history so that the events it considered appear to relate to a woman called Rose, rather than a man called Sean. They refer to Taylor, a man in his 40s, as a “poster girl for LGBT+ rights”.

That's an employment tribunal & not case law.

Yes exactly. They are opinions.

You see I want to receive factual training. Just finished the final test and there were questions that were not even featured in the training!

Who's providing this training OP? Can you say? I'd complain about it for all the reasons you've mentioned. If its not accurate whats the point.

Slightly concerned over outing myself! Also my work would probably think I was being difficult if I raised it.