... ... to remind people of protected characteristics.

[sphinxa]

As defined in the The Equality Act – age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity - are all protected characteristics.

The are protected characteristics for a good reason.

The volume of stereotyping and prejudice on here over the last couple of weeks (or months) has been eye watering : People spouting preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience and the general feelings towards people based solely on their protected characteristics.

If you think it's just a bit of harmless stereotyping, you're wrong. Stereotypes encourage prejudice. Prejudice encourages discrimination.

@CookingGood if you were to be arrested and intimately searched, a trans woman police officer would be able to perform the search regardless of whether you consented. A trans officer actually took the police to court in order to gain the right to intimately search women.

@CookingGood

Rape victims often get an internal examination every bit as intrusive as a Smear test

And yes @HavelockVetinari

"
Last Updated:Thursday, 6 May, 2004, 13:58 GMT 14:58 UK

E-mail this to a friendPrintable version

Police defeat in transsexual case

West Yorkshire Police were guilty of sex discrimination in refusing to recruit a male-to-female transsexual, law lords have ruled.

The five law lords ruled unanimously that the woman, Miss A, was unlawfully discriminated against in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act.

They upheld a decision by the Court of Appeal last November.

West Yorkshire Police had argued that Miss A would not be able to carry out certain duties, such as body searches.

Sex change

Lord Bingham said that, under European law, transsexuals were entitled to the same protection against discrimination as any other individual and to be recognised as belonging to their "acquired gender".

Nobody searched by a post-operative transsexual police officer who was, visually and for all practical purposes, of the same gender could reasonably object to the search, he said."

Well I would bloody well object, extremely loudly!

Would i then be expected to just let him do my smear? Are woman’s rights non existent now

Of course not. You don’t have to let ANYONE give you a smear regardless of any protected characteristic they have. This is needless catastrophising.

People behave as though transgender acceptance is the first time protected characteristics have ever come into conflict before. It isn’t. There are countless other examples - often involving religion. Consider the religious b&b owners who didn’t want to have a gay couple staying, or catholic nurses who don’t want to assist with abortions.

When these circumstances arise, you find a compromise. You work out the most proportionate possible solution. And you don’t say that one group’s rights are ‘non-existent’ because a compromise has been reached.

And on the subject of rape crisis centres - trans women have been accessing these services for decades without issues. Don’t know if it’s the same in England but in Scotland, in the recent consultation on self identification, rape crisis centres expressed vocal support for the suggested changes.

*Gay rights trump religious rights apparently

Stories about cristian b&b owners losing discrimination cases against gay couples*

No, those cases aren’t about gay rights trumping Christian rights. No one, regardless of religion/sexuality, has the right to discriminate, and everyone, regardless of religion/sexuality, has the right to expect the same service as others. If a gay couple ran a bakery and refused to serve a customer because of their religion, they would also lose that case.

bumblebee I’m unfortunately aware of this.

It’s a joke. All this week I’ve been reading all the campaigns surrounding the declines in women going for smears. This is something of a barrier to some women going, is it not? Fs. I know personally i couldn’t let a male bodied person do mine.

Some Muslim women don't go swimming when there are men in the pool, which is why my old local pool used to hold women-only swimming sessions.

The Christian cake case went to the Supreme Court recently. They found it was fine for the bakery to refuse to make the cake www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

The bakery didn't refuse to make a cake for a gay person. They refused to ice the cake with a message that was contrary to their beliefs. If they had refused to sell a cake to a gay customer that would have been an entirely different thing.

If he had have proclaimed to be a woman and started ranting that ‘it’s ma’am’ Would i then be expected to just let him do my smear? Are woman’s rights non existent now?
No, because the person’s right is to be employed by the employer, free from discrimination. Your right is to refuse to have anyone doing your test who you aren’t comfortable with, no matter what they have between their legs.

This is where the hysteria over “competing rights” is shown to be a whole bunch of shit.

People have a legal right to be in certain places and do certain things. People also can walk away if they don’t like it.

Some rape crisis services do not want men who say they are women accessing their services. But they do not say it openly as they will be harassed continously if they do by transactivists, as has happened to the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre.

In the rush to rehash the trans stuff, please let's not forget the protected characteristics of age and disability - where there have been some pretty appalling threads / posts

yabbers Those most affected can not just walk away. Women in women's prisons, women in mental health secure wards, women in homeless hostels.

(sorry - of course they were mentioned - just feel these protected characterises don't get as much as a look in as the others)

the Christian bakery case proves the point that it is unlawful to force anyone to express a belief that they do not hold, something that TRAs and their allies are happy to ignore as they foist their beliefs on all and sundry. But arms post shows that too many people haven't understood the ruling - it is indeed as treacle says, they didn't refuse the (gay) customer, which would have been unlawful on their part, they refused to ice the cake they made for him - and would have done so for any customer, gay, straight or anything else.

This is where the hysteria over “competing rights” is shown to be a whole bunch of shit.

People have a legal right to be in certain places and do certain things. People also can walk away if they don’t like it.

Not in prison they can't. You can't turn to the prison staff and say 'I've chosen not to serve my sentence because there's a man in this prison'.

And refusing medical tests, whilst it may be a choice, is hardly fair on women either because then they're missing out through no fault of their own.

@yabbers

Yes because a raped woman can just go somewhere else
And women don't actually need Smear tests

SMH

No, because the person’s right is to be employed by the employer, free from discrimination. Your right is to refuse to have anyone doing your test who you aren’t comfortable with, no matter what they have between their legs

But would I be able to refuse, if I request a woman hcp, and in the eyes of the employer and the law this person is a woman, even though they have a penis?

@treaclesoda

Or if you are a psychiatric patient

Glad to see sex still listed as one of the protected characteristics.

However, is there a definition of the word sex?

Without one, the law is meaningless these days.

So... is this another trans thread? From the OP I wasn't sure, but from the replies it seems like it is.

SOME muslim women wont be able to do it

But then, SOME people of all sorts of religions have all sorts of prohibitions. That does not mean that it is discrimination if public venues fail to accommodate them all.

Great thread. my contribution is a reminder to childminders (ooh that rhymes), that its illegal to only take on children with no disabilities. Time after time i get 'sorry no i dont take kids with sn' or blocked as soon as i mention disability. Not even a question of asking what reasonable adjustment they could make. I hope one day those same childminders are told that as women they arent allowed to earn their own money and see how they like it.