Even the NSPCC doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender

[Ofew]

I have recently started a small business and needed to draft a safeguarding statement. The NSPCC website has some helpful guidance and a template, and I used them to help me write my own.
However when referring to equalities they list most of the relevant protected characteristics but the omit both sex and gender reassignment, and seem to conflate them as gender, which seems all kinds of wrong!

So I sent them an email. I wonder if they'll respond.

Here's what I sent:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to express my disappointment in the NSPCC's otherwise helpful guidance on safeguarding statements.

I came to the NSPCC's guidance because I am drafting a safeguarding statement for a newly established small business. The guidance and template were extremely helpful and I used them to inform my own document.

However, I was extremely disappointed to see that the NSPCC omits the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment in its equality statements. It states:

Your organisation should make sure that all children and young people have the same protection regardless of age, disability, gender, racial heritage, religious belief, sexual orientation or identity.

It appears that the NSPCC may have conflated sex and gender reassignment under "gender". However these two protected characteristics are very different in law and in practice, and the kinds of discrimination experienced by people holding these protected characteristics are very different. Moreover, "gender" is not a protected characteristic in law under the Equality Act 2004. "Gender" is simply a social construct referring to certain societal norms.

I am especially disappointed that an organisation such as NSPCC should fail to acknowledge the particular discrimination, abuse and harassment experienced by women and girls because of their sex (not gender).

In addition, your approach of conflating sex and gender reassignment fails to recognise the very particular challenges faced by children who consider they may be transsexual.

I would be very happy to discuss this with you further and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/safeguarding/writing-a-safeguarding-policy/

safeguardingtool.nspcc.org.uk/documents/167/Safeguarding-policy.pdf?_ga=2.109359751.387708123.1528445170-1286254606.1528445170

Why don't you post us a link to the wording you are referring to? Gender reassignment is a different protected characteristic to sex. If people are misinterpreting the law we should see this.

Gibberty

That is an incorrect interpretation . PvS and Cornwell CC predates the GRA but more importantly the Recast Directive 2006 and the Equality Act 2010, so in order to argue direct sex discrimination you would have to how less favourable treatment than someone of a different sex on grounds of sex. Sex is defined in section 11 of the Equality Act as a man or a women (ie bio or legally because of GRC).

Discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment is a separate protected characteristic (section 7) and doesn't depend on your sex. So PvS claimant (if no GRC) would plead under section 7, not section 11.

If you think differently, I would love to hear your detailed workings (I am a nerd for this sort of thing)

Rather it is delegated to policy officers who have E&D in their job descriptions. Rather than using the Equality Act, they go on courses and use materials from pressure groups uncritically, without assessing if they are accurate or have an agenda

This is exactly what is happening. Everywhere.

If you think differently, I would love to hear your detailed workings (I am a nerd for this sort of thing)

LOL! I love Mumsnet. Some noodle comes along making pronouncements about their expertise and proclaiming superior knowledge, then a lovely Mumsnetter does a really polite, but total, burn.

Thanks justicewomen, you said it so I don't have too.

But even if Gibberty is right and the PC of sex includes trans people without a GRC, I still don't understand why NSPCC doesn't think it's worth including in their list.

This is exactly what is happening. Everywhere.

Sooner or later there will be a scandal because of this.

"PvS and Cornwell CC predates the GRA but more importantly the Recast Directive 2006 and the Equality Act 2010, so in order to argue direct sex discrimination you would have to how less favourable treatment than someone of a different sex on grounds of sex. Sex is defined in section 11 of the Equality Act as a man or a women (ie bio or legally because of GRC).

Discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment is a separate protected characteristic (section 7) and doesn't depend on your sex. So PvS claimant (if no GRC) would plead under section 7, not section 11."

Mostly I agree. But if the two UK protected characteristics, in aggregate, provide less protection than the Recast Directive then the EA would be capable of challenge. Put another way, it is reasonable, I think, to interpret the combination as gender in terms of equality policies. I can see why activists on both sides might dislike 'their' protected characteristic not being overt but I think equality is advanced by the extra simplicity of presentation.

It's unclear what exactly man and woman mean in s11. As you say, bio +GRC but I don't think bio is as narrow as some on here think.

Ah - this is what you told local authorities when you were being 'responsible for a significant chunk of equality law'? That's why you're upset that your machinations and misrepresentation are now being exposed.

I wonder if they knew at the time that the person advising them considered it 'right' that women have 'zero' right to challenge a naked man in their daughter's changing room.

Could anyone explain the Recast Directive?

Sorry got to be quick. The Recast Directive is EU law eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0054

I think Fibbertys idea of somehow merging 2 distinct protective characteristics is a complete misunderstanding of how protected characteristics work and how EU vs domestic law works. Given we have specific protection against discrimination against gender reassignment and the legal ability to change sex it would be difficult to see how our domestic law is incompatable with the Recast Directive.

gib what do you mean by bio not being as narrow as some on here think?

Thank you! Will read.

Gib: are you accustomed to local authority duffers who haven't a scooby? Because you are being demolished here.

Ah - this is what you told local authorities when you were being 'responsible for a significant chunk of equality law'? That's why you're upset that your machinations and misrepresentation are now being exposed.

Correct.

Awkward thing about middle-aged women - they aren't in the least bothered about saying 'sex'. You can't rely on us to be fey around 'gender issues' lol

Hearing "gender" used when it clearly should be "sex" makes me cringe.

So if it has some relevance to societal roles then fair enough, even though I think for clarity it would be better to use sex. But things like "gender reveal", ugh.

'Gender equality' I correct a lot

I'll always remove gender and replace with sex, where sex is the meaning.

twitter.com/SakuraNoSeirei/status/1005120286809903104?s=20

Come on Sakura we know you're reading. Come and debate here. If you can.

Where is the evidence that all self ID trans ided males including part time Pippa etc are protected on the grounds of the characteristic of "female" sex? Where is the case law?

I mean everyone is protected on the grounds of sex, not just women. So technically a trans-identified male is protected on the grounds of gender reassignment, and on the grounds of being male. Technically.

So technically I suppose he could claim discrimination on the grounds of being male.

Yes indeed. But Sakura deliberately misinterprets the point being made in order to disingenuously suggest that all TIMs can bring a sex discrimination case as women.

Oh what? Of course they can't.

Sakura calls Mumsnetters legally illiterate.

Ridiculous bios like that always prompt a visceral reaction in me 'oh for God's sake go for a walk'