To be uncomfortable that my heterosexual friend is volunteering for lgbt kids charity?

[travellingbird]

My friend has to be the most conscientious person. She is exceptionally engaged with social issues and currently works in a lefty cause (climate change). She told me she was about to start with a work-approved charity for LGBT young people in schools. The aim is to go into schools and address homophobia and gender stereotypes etc. She is hetero and cis. I'm gay, and she has been one of my closest friends even before I came out at 15. She has witnessed and supported me through my battles with homophobic parents. Our mutual best friend is also gay and identifies as agender.
She is well aware of her privilege (in a good way) and has aired her concerns about not being quite right for it, yet is proceeding.

So, am I unreasonable to be uncomfortable with her taking this role? Should I just be happy she is er, "helping us" and being a wonderful ally?

What is an 'internal gender identity'?

"A person who was assigned female at birth and knows as an adult their sex is female usually calls themselves a woman, but that does not mean they have an internal gender identity."

I just don't understand why you think that anyone is saying that they don't have an internal gender identity. Trans and cis are terms which explicitly acknowledge that people have an internal gender identity separate from their biological identification. I agree that it's not a binary opposition and there are plenty of people who are neither cis nor trans. But that is precisely why a term like non-trans (on the analogy of non-driver etc) is less useful - it encompasses more people than only cis people. You can use the term man and woman - but they include both cis and trans people. Can you not see that there are some circumstances in which this language might be useful?

Ubik, I am still waiting to meet a cis person so I can ask them to describe it. I think it would be rude to ask a trans person.

Sorry, you've lost me almondcakes. But I am a lawyer and can assure you that any discrimination based on gender is covered by the legislation and cases refer to gender and sex indiscriminately. There is definitely no loophole by which an employer can say "oh no, I was just discriminating on gender identity, not biological sex."

Jello, because a. I've read the transgender and b. because nobody I know well and have discussed it with believes they have an internal gender identity and c. I was brought up from birth in a family that believed men and women are mentally the same.

Jello, using gender to discriminate against someone is like using racism to discriminate against someone. The person being discriminated against is being discriminated against because of the other person's racist or gender based belief, but the victim is being targeted because of their sex or ethnicity.

Can you give an example of gender discrimination please jello?

But you've just said that you think that there is a distinction between sex and gender! If you believe in gender how can you not believe in "internal gender identity"? Gender is a social construct and as such it is possible to choose oneself ('internally" to use your language) which gender one identifies with.

Since gender is a social construct, why am I limited to picking between two options? Why aren't there 27? Why do I have to pick at all, can't I just be a person whose biological sex is female?

No, almondcakes, that is not a correct statement of the EA. There is no requirement that the person discriminated against has any particular characteristic. You can experience homophobic discrimination based on a false perception that you are gay, racist discrimination based on a false perception of your ethnic identity. If a person applying for a job was rejected on the grounds that the employer incorrectly assumed (eg from their name) that they were a woman that is still sex discrimination.

"There is definitely no loophole by which an employer can say "oh no, I was just discriminating on gender identity, not biological sex."

Of course. That would be equivalent to saying, "oh no, I was just discriminating because I believe asthmatic people have a special internal asthma brain, not because of their breathing."

It doesn't make asthma brain a common thing or that I am cis asthmatic just because I, as a person who biologically has asthma want protection against an employer saying such stuff.

Iggi - you are not limited to two options! You can choose what you like. People define as a-gender and genderqueer for example.

Because in your examples the person is being discriminated against based on their assumed sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc. It would still be sex discrimination, even if they are not the sex the person assumed.

And not everything that is socially constructed is an 'identity.'

I am struggling to believe that any sane ordinary person calls themselves 'Cis'. FFS

Right almondcakes - so what's the problem? You seemed to be implying that gender was not protected under the act. But it is.

An example of gender based discrimination? well, I'd think that the vast majority of sex discrimination cases are really gender discrimination. But an example that springs to mind would be a requirement that employees have to have short hair. Given that either biological sex can have long hair this isn't sex discrimination. But given that more women choose to wear their hair long as part of their gender identity, this would give rise to indirect discrimination against people who present as women. So it would be gender discrimination (but obviously covered by sex discrimination as the Act doesn't actually make any distinction between sex and gender).

Can you point out where gender is protected under the Equality Act, jello? In the text of the Act?

As I've said several times, sex is a protected characteristic and the case law makes it perfectly obvious that this covers both discrimination based on biological sex and gender. There have been just so many cases about clothing and make up and other gendered characteristics that have nothing to do with biological sex and everything to do with social gender.

I will explain yet again.

If you believe only people who are white in appearance should be able to wear a suit and attempt to enforce this, you are a racist, because you are perpetuating a racial stereotypes and such stereotypes are socially constructed. The person is being discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. This does not make them into a socially constructed racial stereotype.

If you believe only people who are female should have long hair and attempt to enforce this, you are a misogynst who is perpetuating gender and gender is socially constructed. The person is being discriminated against on the basis of their sex. That does not make them into a gender.

Gender is what you are attempting to force on them. Sex is the attribute they have.

Sorry, almondcakes, but you seem very confused. I am not forcing gender on anyone. I have said many times that anyone is free to choose their own gender identity. I don't know where you are getting that I don't think this.

Fwiw I agree with you that race is a social construct too. But are you saying that only racists believe in race? Clearly many people identify with an ethnic identity. It's not for anyone else to say what their ethnic identity is, but that doesn't mean they don't have an ethnic identity (nor that they can't be discriminated against because of it).

I also clearly did not say that I believe that only people who are female should have long hair! what I did say is that an employer who insisted that all their employees have short hair would be guilty of indirect sex discrimination (in the language of the equality act) - and that this would be an example of discrimination based on gender - because more people who identify as women have long hair than those who identify as men, not because of any innate biological characteristic but because of how people who identify as men and women choose to present themselves. Because it's a choice in how they present themselves long hair is a characteristic associated with gender rather than sex. I mentioned it because a pp asked for an eg of gender rather than sex discrimination that would be covered by the equality act.

I am not confused. You saying so is just a little patronising.

You are conflating gender - a societal structure with gender identity - an internal feeling, as well as conflating race and ethnicity.

Here is WHO definition of sex and gender:

www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

When trans people talk about gender identity they do not mean gender. they mean an internal sense. They're not saying I really feel I am a woman because I think I shouldn't be allowed to drive and be paid less.

Here are the international rights of women:

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

Exercept:

"For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."

You are imposing gender on people if you insist that anyone who calls themselves a woman must have a gender identity. Most of them are referring to their sex.

Ahh so you're saying that you can only have a gender identity if you think you have a gender identity? But what about a woman who doesn't think that she has a gender identity but thinks that it is appropriate for her to wear make up, skirts and dresses but not appropriate for men to do so. Presumably you don't think that there is a biological imperative to wear make up or dresses. So mightn't a woman's sense that it is appropriate for her to wear these things be motivated by her gender identity rather than by her biological sex (even if she is not herself aware that there is a distinction)?

I would say she is motivated by what she has learnt that society expects a woman or a man to behave like. She has been motivated by the gender constructs presented in our society. I would not say that she has a gender identity.

Yes. gender identity is self defined.

The woman might think that because she believes it is important to follow religious rules or many other reasons.

People's gender expression is often different to their gender identity. there are trans women who consider themselves tomboyish.

well, yes it's not secret that gender is learned from society. But in my experience, the vast majority of people find that their gender is a major part of their identity. I certainly feel that I identify as a woman as much as a person. But I can't speak for you!

In my experience people find that their biological sex is a major part of their life experience and who they are. If you are making assumptions from people acknowledging their sex that they feel any particular way about gender identities, that's your issue.