Should "sex" be on this list?

[LisaTheMug]

Can anyone here please help me? I am in Worthing and trying to pursue the WPUK campaign of making sure public bodies don't switch "sex" for "gender" but I am confused.

On a police page, I found this list:

"Identity Based Mentoring

We have recently introduced a new Identity Based Mentoring scheme which will enable Sussex Police officers and staff to request a mentor based on a shared identity.

• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Pregnancy and Maternity
• Race
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Sexual Orientation

The scheme is open to anyone in the Force and will be running alongside the existing Mentoring Scheme. Its aim will be to support staff with career progression and personal growth. In addition it will enable them to receive guidance and encouragement from a mentor who shares one or more of the characteristics."

The page is at sussex.police.uk/about-us/governance-and-processes/equality-and-diversity/

Sex is not on that list. But it has both "Gender reassignment" and "Gender".

I phoned the bloke in charge and he told me gender and sex are the same thing, and I said, no, sex is a protected characteristic, but to be honest I could not be very stern because I felt I was on wobbly ground because I don't really understand what TF I am doing.

Does sex being a protected characteristic mean that it ought to appear on that list instead of "gender"? Or does that only count on statements that specifically mention the EA?

Sex should be on the list
Gender reassignment should be on the list
Gender should not.

The EA mentions sex. Not gender.

It absolutely should be on the list. Sex is a protected characteristic in its own right. Gender is how someone identifies. They are talking bollocks.

They, no doubt, have been advised manipulated by a certain organisation that is going out of it’s way to twist and manipulate the laws.

Also.... is this whole page mis-named?

Are they muddling "gender" with "sex" or is it just me not understanding?

sussex.police.uk/about-us/governance-and-processes/equality-and-diversity/equality-and-diversity-gender/

Bowlofbabelfish

Thank you for helping me get this straight.

You say sex should be on the list; gender should not, because the EA mentions sex. Not gender. However, nowhere on that page do the police claim that their "Identity Based Mentoring scheme" is based on the EA. So what can I use to challenge their wording?

It’s clearly based on the EA.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Here’s a summary.

I would suggest a polite note along the lines of ‘having reviewed the list of characteristics on your web page, which are clearly based on the equality act 2010, I would like to point out an error.
Sex, not gender is the protected characteristic. Sex and gender are sometimes confused in speech, but it is important to differentiate them when drawing up guidelines such as these. The protected characteristic under the EA2010 is SEX..’

PS again, should I also complain about this list:

"The Public Sector Equality Duty covers the following protected characteristics:

Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Pregnancy and maternity
Race (this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality)
Religion or belief (this includes lack of belief)
<strong>Sex (gender)</strong>
Sexual orientation"

Should I pick them up for conflating sex and gender like that?

I would. The two are not the same.

Or at least request clarification in writing... ;)

How are they seeing 'age' as an identity?

It is repeatedly said on MN that sex is not an identity so, for an Identity Mentoring Scheme why are people proposing sex rather gender?

Disability isn't an identity either, Snappity. Nor is age. Nor pregnancy. Nor sexual orientation.

I'd guess it's because it's a seriously muddle-headed scheme with wording suggested by somewhere like Stonewall?

It is repeatedly said on MN that sex is not an identity so, for an Identity Mentoring Scheme why are people proposing sex rather gender?

Because none of the other characteristics make any sense as identities, I’m assuming it’s some daft, ill advised attempt at being woke.

Disability and pregnancy aren’t identities, so what can this list possibly mean

Of course words can mean whatever the fuck one wants in these days of playing fast and loose with reality, but you’d hope the police of all places would be fairly grounded.

Bowlofbabelfish I was doing OK and have written my letter, then all those messages came in after yours and I am confused again.

Shall I just ignore them because they are a bit off of the topic I am trying to focus on?

My autism means I get easily confused, but I really want to do my bit for the WPUK campaign.

Ah! I understand now.

Maybe I should add into my letter that, under

"Identity Based Mentoring

• Age
• Disability
• Gender reassignment
• Pregnancy and Maternity
• Race
• Religion or belief
• Gender
• Sexual Orientation

That these are not identities?

Or shall I just stick to sex/gender?

I would just stick to sex/gender and politely suggest that if they wish to use the protected characteristics under EqA, it would be best, as a police force tasked with upholding the law to get them right.

What langcleg says - stick to the conflation of sex and gender just now.

The two are not the same.

Identity based mentoring - sensitivity gone mad! So could I demand a gender critical mentor because of my beliefs, or a vegetarian or even a vegetarian gender critical Caucasian.
Seriously I think it is useful for minorities and women but they are making a meal of it which does cause me to question it's authenticity - tick box exercise.

Ok I will do that for that letter.
------------
Bowlofbabelfish could you also advise me on another letter?

I stumbled across this on that same police website:

"What is a hate crime? It’s when a person is treated with hate just for who they are – ie for their sexuality, gender identity, disability, race, faith, or gypsy heritage."

Note, "sex" is not mentioned.

"Anyone could be a victim of hate. For example, if someone shouts homophobic abuse at you, you are still the victim of homophobic hate, whatever your sexual orientation."

"When is hate serious enough to report? If you are insulted? Offended? Scared? Threatened? Shoved? Attacked?

All of the above. If it happens, it’s serious enough."

I'm a little taken aback that merely being offended by someone saying something unkind about a particular sub-group (excluding women) that you aren't even a member of constitutes a "hate crime" against yourself.

Have they excluded "sex" from the protected list because women grow up in and then live their lives surrounded by sex-based hate?

I think this law stinks of snowflakery, BUT, if hateful speech and conduct is going to be counted as a crime, shouldn't we be campaigning to be included?

sexuality, gender identity, disability, race, faith, or gypsy heritage

I note that, as well as sex, being ginger, or fat, are also excluded. So presumably one can hurl abuse at people with those characteristics with impunity. Also, being foreign isn't included, if one is of the same race. So you can insult a Swede but not an African.

The list therefore discriminates against everyone who isn't included.

Sorry I derailed my own thread there.

The hate crime stuff seems OK - a crime needs to have been committed and be motivated by hate, so if the offence itself wasn’t serious enough to be a crime it can’t be a hate crime. Insults and words could concieveably be seen as hate crime I think it would depend on the setting?

I’m no lawyer though! Can anyone else advise more here..?

Don't think sex is covered by hate crime legislation!

Surrey Police has made the decision to include an extra category of hate crime – alternative subcultures.

disability
race or ethnicity
religion or belief
sexual orientation
transgender identity
alternative subculture identity - for example "Goth" "Emo" "Punk"
Offences can be committed against a person or property.

Women are still not included though.

www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

Here you go, OP.

In England and Wales the monitored strands of hate crime are:

racially and religiously aggravated;
homophobic, biphobic and transphobic; and
disability hate crime.

These strands are covered by legislation (sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.

The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

Thank you LangCleg.

I have started a new thread about this on the main boards because this isn't purely a feminist issue but one that affects all females.