I should say something about this, shouldn’t I? Protected charactistics

[BlazeAway]

There’s a new template for society constitutions, and this is a compulsory clause.

“The Society believes that discrimination or harassment, direct or indirect, based on a person’s gender, age (except where it relates to licensing laws), race, skin colour, nationality, religious belief, socio-economic background, disability, HIV status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, family situation, domestic responsibilities or any other irrelevant distinction, is detrimental to the society, the university and wider society, and will not be tolerated.”

Now, while I don’t mind them adding to the list of protected characteristics actually defined in law, it’s pretty poor that sex isn’t in there, isn’t it? Pregnancy and maternity and marital/civil partnership also aren’t there, but I suppose would fall under “family situation”.

If I’m being perfectly honest, I don’t quite see why we need the clause to be so explicit - why not “that discrimination or harassment in any form, direct or indirect, is detrimental...”?

They’re adding things willy-nilly at this point... I just hope somebody thought that “gender” is a politer way of saying “sex” and it’s just been left like that, but we’ll find out I suppose.

I think you are right, people (even in 2018) don't want to use the word sex because it also means the sex act - 'having sex" etc. I think a lot of people who are unaware of the scientific difference and unaware of he whole GRA/self-declaration issues use "gender" just because it sounds politer.

So should SEX worker not be changed to GENDER worker, if sex is such a taboo word? Plonkers! I’ve already put this on another thread but I put a line through the word gender and replaced it with SEX when my youngest needed a medical referral form filled in. A fucking medical form! I pointed it out, told them gender is a nonsense and that I expected better from a health centre.

^^ Quite right Positively. More of us should do this - especially on a medical form.

Sex workers being included is a red flag for me.

Who do they want to be? O fan?

Sorry meant to say Oxfam there

Thank you PompholyxOfUnknownOrigin I think if more people did this on every form, others would take notice. I wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t decided they had all her details correct. The irony is that they are putting things like this on forms without asking the client what ‘gender’ they identify with, so if anyone ever accuses me of being a transphobe for doing it, then I have the perfect answer. “You call me a transphobe, yet assumed my child’s gender identity because of her SEX.” Let that sink in. 😬 If my child was at one of these stupid schools that have swallowed this rubbish, I would ask to see her records and insist on sex not gender being used.

Sex workers being included is a red flag for me it’s worrying that sex work is being pushed as a normal lifestyle choice at the same time that lesbians are being bullied into accepting ‘lady dick’ 🤢 and women’s rights to male free spaces are being eroded.

Most acts will have further definitions in later sections/annexed and the aims of the act will be detailed in the white paper (likely to discuss in depth pregnancy and marital status). Acts of parliament are intentionally worded somewhat ambiguously to allow judges more scope to interpret the act in a manner that is appropriate to the case they are sitting and policy considerations that may only arise after the act comes into force.

Right, it’s a central university policy apparently. So can’t be challenged through the Soc dept. Though he’s going to pass me on to somebody else apparently. It has come up before in terms of departments having all different guidelines on how to deal with sexual harassment, but nobody’s actually done anything about it.

I’m allowed my version in my club’s constitution though I might start a one-woman revolution and try to persuade other socs I know to use my wording too (or at least add sex in)...

Sexual harassment is based on sex. Someone who targets me, certainly isn't targeting Danielle Muscato.

Ffs it’s just everywhere now isn’t it.

Such utterly woolly thinking. Such a lack of critical faculties.

Never mind the overarching issues... You would think this is a concerted effort by men who hate women to introduce the most misogynistic agenda one could possibly come up with.

Oh wait...

Just checked the equality policy of a school I'm considering working at. Gender is used throughout instead of sex. Gender reassignment doesn't appear so sex and gender reassignment have been conflated to be just gender.

I’m just bumping this as it’s dropped off threads I’m on. I sent an e-mail
to the correct person and am waiting for a response, but was told it might have to be a student-led change (so a motion to the student council).

If it is does, I’m really not that optimistic - I mentioned it the other evening and was told that sexism is purely based on gender identity, so I’m not sure that many people will see why I think it’s an issue. (Clue: it’s the law!)

And this is a university where a motion was passed in the not-too-distant past that the union was itself a feminist.

I actually went to look up the “SU is a feminist” motion, and there was a really interesting bit...

“The SU needs to be trying to create a society where women have the same opportunities as men, and aren’t objectified in order to sell products. A society where 1 in 3 women are not sexually harassed or raped and where everyone understands that gender is a social construct.”

So, I’ve had a reply:

“The reason we choose to list out the protected characteristics in our policies is to reassure individuals that what has happened to them is covered by the policy, as we know that hate crimes and discrimination against protected groups is often under-reported. We also want to highlight that while anyone may unfortunately experience harassment or bullying, some incidents are part of wider structures of oppression and discrimination, and may therefore have a significant impact, even though the incident itself seems relatively minor.

However, our policies are not designed to replace or duplicate the Equality Act, and therefore while there are similarities with the protected characteristics outlined in the Act the specific wording has been developed by students over a period of years. As this is an internal policy, in order to make changes to this list we would need to see a clear demand for this from a significant number of students.

As I think X mentioned to you, we’re more than happy for your society to continue using the wording you’ve included at the end of your email but if a student were to make a complaint about your society then they would obviously be free to reference both your Constitution and the Students’ Association’s wider Safe Space Policy.”

The same Safe Space Policy that also doesn’t include sex.

I don’t know what to do now - maybe e-mail back with the potential legal implications? They have so many characteristics I don’t see why they can’t just add sex in!

In order for discrimination or harassment on the grounds of sex to be an issue they would need to see a demand for that? Really?

No but really?

Apparently so.

From a union that defines itself as a feminist and is currently running a huge campaign around challenging sexual harassment and violence it’s pretty poor isn’t it?

So, you're pointing out that they've omitted one thing from a long list, and their response it to say, yes, we know, we did it on purpose and we're not going to change it?

Yeah, I'd email them back with the potential legal consequences of their omission, including the fact that they'd have to justify why they didn't include this one particular protected characteristic on their long list.

Does The Society have the authority to unilaterally remove sex from protected characteristics and replace with gender? I shouldn't think so.

Fuck me. I found the same thing in a new political group related to my field. It included a lot of people schooled in the new transactivist rhetoric. Quite different from my last interaction with those schooled in campus politics - i.e. what used to be a diverse and welcoming collection of weak and radical far leftists.

Their first priority on establishing this group was faff around creating all their 'safe space' rules. They clearly missed out on sex on their list. It only had the feelz. I backed away slowly at that point, because I saw that it might be a way of sniffing out the witches. If I'd complained it might have got around the industry and I may have lost my job. Incidentally one of the real TA nutters (there's actually been a thread about him on here) was on the email list of the group so another reason to back away slowly.

I don’t know thebewilderness —the person is saying that it isn’t supposed to replicate or duplicate the Equalities Act, so it could give completely different characteristics. But surely the Equalities Act should be mentioned as well?

I’m wondering whether it’s a bit irresponsible of the SU since this is the version they’re telling societies to put. If there were to be legal implications for a society, all they could say is “well, the SU told us that was what to write”.

I had this issue with the National Standards for Community Engagement produced in Scotland. Scottish cCommunity Development Centre produce them for all bodies involved in community planning. When outlining the protected characteristics they had simply replaced sex with gender . I told them this was not what the law stated and they immediately said I was correct. But god only knows how many copies had already been printed. And if it has been changed for a new print run.. I will need to check.

It’s being transferred to somebody higher up. I’m hoping because of the legal issues they’ll just change it themselves, rather than me having to put it to the Student Council. It’s really their responsibility to make sure it’s legally right, rather than mine to try to convince people!