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?

I cannot edit the document?

Anyone able to help with this response?

I just tweeted the university - don't see why you need to be a student to point out that their policy is wrong.
They're public institutions after all.

Here is a 'view only' version of the Local Councils England spreadsheet on Dropbox. I gave up on Google Docs. You don't need Dropbox to view. Let's keep it view only for now as I am keeping track of the changes. www.dropbox.com/s/xmq54yl0vxih1au/Local%20Councils%20List%202018.xlsx?dl=0

Well, my council referred to the list, but had failed to include it on the page they referred to it 🙄. So following my email requesting they clarify the 9 protected characteristics, they have. But include gender and do not mention sex.

I have responded to point out that I still think it’s incorrect...

Posted elsewhere however...

Success with Caerphilly LA. I emailed them yesterday afternoon and by just gone 9 this morning I had a response assuring me it would be changed to ‘Sex’ only. I’m slightly suspicious at the speed and lack of challenge to my request, makes me think word has got around that women are questioning their wording...

Banana: what the EQHRC says is not what the law says by the looks of it. Tell them the EQHRC is also being asked to change its wording.

And tell them gender, gender identity and sex are different and out of them only sex is a protected characteristic.

Thanks banana. I am interested why the Equality and Human Rights Commission equate sex and gender like that. It suggests they think that the term sex in EA 2010 is not narrow biology but is (close to) what is usually termed gender here. I have sent them an FOI to try to get their understanding of the terms sex and gender. It will take time to get a reply of course.

"And tell them gender, gender identity and sex are different and out of them only sex is a protected characteristic."

Why are you so sure that sex and gender are different in equality law? Surely it depends what meaning sex has in EA 2010? Unhelpfully from memory the Act only describes sex as either male or female but it does not explicitly say biological sex. Surely if Parliament had meant to restrict the meaning they would have drafted the text to say "biological sex" or "physiological sex". Moreover the definition of gender reassignment talks about the "physiological aspects of sex" which suggests that there are other aspects of sex ie that sex in EA 2010 is much broader than biological sex and that "gender" might be an accurate synonym.

I will spend more time on it because I think this does widen the protection in EA 2010.

Because they name sex and they don't name gender. You have no idea what either is so perhaps you shouldn't be asking the question.

"Because they name sex and they don't name gender. You have no idea what either is so perhaps you shouldn't be asking the question."

That is why I have asked EHRC but what we do know is that sex in EA 2010 has to mean more than "physiological aspects of sex" and, contrary to what people on here often claim a "single sex facility" must therefore broader than one in which people share the same physiological aspects of sex. This thread has potential to transform our understanding and give trans women like my partner even more protection than we had understood. And, if store like M&S did try restrict on biology, I now understand the law much better to push back.

This thread has been very, very useful

what we do know is that sex in EA 2010 has to mean more than physiological aspects of sex

Stop making things up.

"Stop making things up."

You wish I was but know that I am not. S7(1) with emphasis added

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has 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."

With the example in the Explanatory Notes

"A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act."

The man in this example has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment has changed an other attribute of sex - his social presentation. So" "sex" in the Act isn't a biological descriptor but includes social. So sex = gender in EA 2010

So once we reach "single sex services" that actually means single gender services. That IS the existing law and I had missed it before this helpful thread.

A TIM without a GRC cannot be considered female. Pure sophistry.

A TIM without a GRC cannot be considered female. Pure sophistry.

But thank you for further demonstrating (if anyone needed it) exactly why the transagenda is so focussed on gender self identification in law.

Gibberty: enjoy the fantasy you have cooked up about the law. Institutions up and down the country are changing the word 'gender' to 'sex' on their policies because they actually understand it. And respect it. What is sex, Gib? What is gender?

It seems to have kept Gibberty up all night, excitedly writing to unfortunate council staff.

Unhelpfully from memory the Act only describes sex as either male or female but it does not explicitly say biological sex.

Male or female refer to biological sex. They are biological terms.

As Gibberty knows, the bit of paper from the Ministry of Truth confers on trans identified males the protected characteristic of female sex. There are less than 3k male GRC holders.

My council changed the wording on Monday after I'd pointed out the errors. I don't suppose they just took my word for it though, but actually checked it out for themselves first.

Ah, well, if some poor souls are busy pointlessly harassing councils, it means they'll have less time to more of their nonsense on here...

hmm I must admit though I am unhappy with...

for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex

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?

This worries me. Have I understood it wrong?

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

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.

I and most people interpret sex as biological and transgender people mimic being the opposite sex by adopting gender specific roles and outward appearance. That is the spirit the EA was written in and to say differently is trying to fit the current law into your own ideology.

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.

Agree the wording in the EA is Orwellian and confusing though.