Does your Local Authority Equality Policy exclude sex as a protected characteristic?

[bananaistheanswer]

Inspired by Jean Hatchet's posts on twitter, I checked mine and colour me shocked, it's been excluded.

Attached below is the list from the EA2010 with my LA's interpretation alongside - note the wording We believe our responsibility for equality is wider than those areas covered by the Equality Act 2010

So removing sex from the list of protected characteristics widens the scope of the EA2010?

So what's your LA equality policy like?

"To me that reads the EA believes you can allocate someone's sex differently to how it was observed? In which case, does this mean someone who is a TIM can then be classed as having changed to female so thus share that sex based characteristic?"

TIM is an abusive term but yes, the law is clear that trans people can change sex

" I suppose it still does not suggest sex and gender are the same thing though."

Wrong. Read S7(i) and the accompanying example in the Explanatory Notes. There a person changes just social presentation and that is an example of changing aspects of sex. So it is very clear that sex in the Equality Act means gender.

GibberyFlibbert

Can’t help but notice your glee here.

Just so we’re clear, would you like to remove the ability of women to exclude transwomen using the single sex exemptions in the EqA?

Gibberty is demonstrating in an excellent way thay there needs to be more clarity on the EA and the different characteristics, to avoid the wilfull misinterpretation of the Act that transfollowers keep trying to do.

YY. We can see the sophistry that keeps being wheeled out. And it bamboozles people in LAs etc. Sarah Brown has managed to convince a council to be "ahead of the law" as the new saying goes.

"The protected characteristic for TIMs is gender reassignment. The legal act for changing "gender" and being seen as the opposite sex for most purposes is the GRA. TIMs with GRC are considered by the EA to be female but the law recognises that they are biologically male in the existence of exemptions. TIMs without GRC are male with protected characteristic of gender reassignment."

Stop using the abusive term TIM please.

But, no EA 2010 is clear that aspects of sex can be changed without a GRC. That absolutely disproves that sex is dimorphic - if dimorphic it would be impossible to change aspects of sex. Moreover, there is nothing in EA 2010 which says that so many aspects of sex itself cannot be changed that sex itself changes. It turns out that EA 2010 is far richer than people had noticed.

"Just so we’re clear, would you like to remove the ability of women to exclude transwomen using the single sex exemptions in the EqA?"

Trans women are women.

Ereshkigal thank you for trying to clear this up for me. It is confusing. I am still confused tbh

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process

so yes TIMs have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment BUT if they are also classed as being female because they have

undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex

which implies they have had their sex re-allocated from male to female, doesn't that mean they also have the protected characteristic of the female sex? So have the right to access female only spaces?

It is possible to have more than one protected characteristic after all?

I've just checked my police authority. In the main equality bit it uses sex and gender identity (not reassignment). In the Employment Records bit sex disappears and it's gender and gender identity. This is really a subversion of the meaning of the Equalty Act

"Just so we’re clear, would you like to remove the ability of women to exclude transwomen using the single sex exemptions in the EqA?"

Trans women are women.

Thank you for answering.

Trans woman are men. And we will fight you every step of the way.

just spotted this in the explanatory notes for "Sex"

This section is a new provision which explains that references in the Act to people having the protected characteristic of sex are to mean being a man or a woman, and that men share this characteristic with other men, and women with other women

As far as I am aware, the only characteristic that all women share are XX and men XY?

This is really a subversion of the meaning of the Equalty Act

Yes it is, it's not unreasonable to expect that the law is correctly referenced. The question for me is why has this happened and who is responsible.

Hello, as of now MNHQ have new rules posted on top of the board. Certain terms are no longer tolerated. Don't use them again from this point onwards or you will be suspended, along with the excessive posters reporting everything as transphobic when it's not

Moreover, there is nothing in EA 2010 which says that so many aspects of sex itself cannot be changed that sex itself changes

At which point does this mysterious change occur? You know, other than by the legal Act specifically intended to do this?

GibbertyFlibbert
EA 2010 is clear that aspects of sex can be changed without a GRC. That absolutely disproves that sex is dimorphic
Governments don't change scientific/biological reality, though some like South Africa tried

It's not clear in any way that sex means gender in the Equality Act.

TIMs have been exploiting the fact that what 'sex' means is so bloody obvious, it isn't thought necessary to add a definition.

TIM is a descriptive acronym. You don't get to tell women what to do. Go back to Angels if you don't like TIM.

@Pratchet look at the new rules, NOW!

Oh my goodness

I looked. I see they're updated two hours ago. But am I missing something? Have the TRA managed to persuade mumsnet that trans-identified male is abusive?

Engage on the thread with MNHQ, using careful language,or you will be suspended from MN.

That sounds bossy. I had no idea there was a new thread. Why didn't you link, if it's so urgent.

@GibbertyFlibbert, do you think Kimberley Nixon should have been allowed to work for Vancouver Rape Relief?

www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/chronology-events-kimberly-nixon-vs-vancouver-rape-relief-society

At a guess, yes, Gibberty thinks this person was completely within their rights to demand access to a service solely meant for born women even though this person was not and other options were avaialble. This person then sued to absolute maximum to demand their entitlement to gain access against womens wishes. Boundaries: gone. Right to consent: gone. But who cares, right?

Gib thinks VRR is 'odious' for not accepting Nixon.

And latest response - my LA aren't budging on their wording.

Anyone got any further comeback on this?

But, no EA 2010 is clear that aspects of sex can be changed without a GRC. That absolutely disproves that sex is dimorphic - if dimorphic it would be impossible to change aspects of sex. Moreover, there is nothing in EA 2010 which says that so many aspects of sex itself cannot be changed that sex itself changes. It turns out that EA 2010 is far richer than people had noticed.

It absolutely does not prove this.

No law written can change reality. No law written can change biological fact.

Reality exists despite what any law, or any interpretation of that law, says.

Tell them the word sex in the Equality Act refers to sex(reproductive role) not sex(gender).? Ask them if they can confirm that sex(gender) in their policy refers to sex(reproductive role) because that's exactly how it's used in the EA. It will be interesting if they agree or disagree! I think you are incredible, banana!