Has “Transgender” replaced “Gender Reassignment” in protected characteristics of Equality Act?

[Gacapa]

This is what I’ve been told after I questioned the change in my council’s terms of reference.

I’ve no idea what this actually means or how best to challenge it.

I read Tara Hewitt online saying they were protected under the EA as a woman under the characteristic sex.

Suburban It should take him 5 minutes to confirm it and then likely an increasingly intense day of phone calls to work out what to do next.

The councils will also need to be encouraged to investigate which of their spaces & services may have (in good faith) used the incorrect policy as a basis for their own. One step at a time though eh?

I’m sick of this shit.

How can a Council be allowed to amend wording enshrined in an ACT without any change to that ACT?

Fobbing me off with loads of prattle about recommendations. Since when did that mean you could just change a law? Might as well just stick anything in there.

I’ve asked for legal confirmation ASAP.

It's my understanding (following a statement from the quango Equality and Human Rights Commission) that the Equality Act covers transgender people in two ways:

1. if they have a Gender recognition certificate, then they are covered by the protected characteristic of sex

1. If they "live as" a man/woman, but have no GRC, then they are covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I think that view, if correct, (and it's provides a lead for local councils) needs challenging in the Consultation over the Equality Act.

Allowing self i/d into the gender reassignment characteristic is the stuff of nightmares for women.

Tara might have a GRC. Otherwise I don't see how Tara would be covered by protected characteristic female sex.

Regardless of how its applied, the Act is specific.
There are 9 protected characteristics including sex and gender reassignment.
Tara Hewitt has authored Diversity & Equality NHS policy documents which do not use the protected characteristics as listed in the legislation.
She has legal qualifications.

I’m coming at this with absolutely no angle. So just asking for the legal facts. Can they change “gender reassignment” to “transgender”.

I’m leaving out anything they can construe. If the Act hasn’t been changed then, as far as I can tell, they can’t change the wording of it regardless of who has made recommendations or has other preferences.

Has any other act been changed in such a way? I really can’t believe it’s legal.

I expect you’re right, R0wan - one step at a time.

I could almost hear him mouthing “I’ve got one of those feminists on the line” to his colleagues as I explained why the council’s list has to be the same as the Equality Act one (but I’m too long in the tooth to care)!

I’m coming at this with absolutely no angle. So just asking for the legal facts. Can they change “gender reassignment” to “transgender”.

I’m leaving out anything they can construe. If the Act hasn’t been changed then, as far as I can tell, they can’t change the wording of it regardless of who has made recommendations or has other preferences

This would be my perpective and expectation too.

We have in the list from my council.

Gender and transgender identity
Sexual orientation

But not sex

The council list is wrong on two counts should be sex and gender reassignment!
I think there's a spreadsheet which someone was managing with updates.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3272580-Spreadsheet-of-local-authorities-that-record-sex-not-gender-lets-complete-it-together

Has “Transgender” replaced “Gender Reassignment” in protected characteristics of Equality Act

The duty as set out in the act covers the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment". However, if a local authority's equality policy covers transgender people - as long it does not miss out anyone with the characteristic of gender reassignment - then surely that complies with the law.

Similarly if they use the more inclusive language of gender not sex. Or if they cover veteran status - something not protected by the EA.

For people who think otherwise, are there any legal sources you can cite.

Similarly if they use the more inclusive language of gender not sex.

Inclusive of whom? I don't have a "gender". I only have a sex.

This is the EHRC guidance around collecting information on gender identity. www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/collecting_info_gender_id.pdf

They state

Ensure that your service or employment policies and practices do not discriminate against transgender people – especially in terms of dignity at work and harassment policies, recruitment and monitoring. Larger organisations may wish to develop specific policies on gender identity.

in the section on Meeting the equality duty.

So the EHRC seems to be suggesting policies should cover transgender people not the narrow requirement of gender reassignment.

What's the difference, Sarah?

The key issue SarahAr is reference to protected characteristics, there are nine in the 2010 Equalities Act. They are specific and include sex and gender reassignment.

link here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

Sarah has a point. The EHRC commission is suggesting/ advising employers to have systems in place to prevent harassment, to cover recruitment and monitoring etc etc. Yes, yes, yes to all of those things for trans employees and service users. No question about it.

I don't want to see a section of society that is treated differently or stigmatised and I support these basic and decent measures by employers and service providers.

I think that these are the sort of things where some grown-up discussion and mediation can reconcile our different perspectives.

The sticking point is where the government - through quangos like EHRC and training provider like Stonewall - rides roughshod over women's rights without 'due diligence' or measuring the impact. It favours and accedes to the wish-list of one group, and won't even discuss the matter with the affected group. It says: "put up or shut up because this is the way it is going to be".

There are two seperate points, one is the legislation which is the starting point for diversity and equality policies (especially so with regards public sector policy). The language in this and the protected characteristics are fixed by law.

There is then in any policy further application discussion & develpment etc.

The legislation though remains central and the Equalities Act has not (yet) been ammended to replace sex with gender or gender ressignment with transgender.

I would encourage everyone interested to watch Ann Sinnott in conversation with Venice Allen discussing the background to the Equalities Act, the actions of Sarah Brown in Cambridge and the wider consequences and context.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327625-venice-allen-speaks-to-anne-sinnott

The sticking point is where the government - through quangos like EHRC and training provider like Stonewall - rides roughshod over women's rights without 'due diligence' or measuring the impact. It favours and accedes to the wish-list of one group, and won't even discuss the matter with the affected group. It says: "put up or shut up because this is the way it is going to be".

This.

There are two seperate [sic] points, one is the legislation which is the starting point for diversity and equality policies (especially so with regards public sector policy). The language in this and the protected characteristics are fixed by law.

The protected characteristics are certainly fixed by the EA. However, I see nothing that fixes the language in diversity and equality policies for public sector bodies or otherwise. If anyone can point me at any sources of law suggestion otherwise e.g. legislation, statutory codes etc - would be grateful.

The EHRC themselves also suggest the language is not fixed. They recommend that "employers and service providers" consider the recommendations in this [the Miller report] when setting their trans policies". See www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

This recommendation is not in a statutory code, but employers and service providers should still pay heed to it.

Ok I have listened to the first 8 mins of the video

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327625-venice-allen-speaks-to-anne-sinnott

I have heard that a "group of feminists" told Cambridge Cambridge that their policy breached the EA and Anne seems to have taken this at face value. Certainly she does not provide a legal argument. She also does not seem to realise that the "group of feminists" may not be legal experts and may have their own agenda to remove trans rights.

Anne then states that having a blanket policy not to apply the EA exceptions breaches the EA. This is not correct. If you choose to use the exceptions, you have to apply them on a case by case basis. It is perfectly fine legally not to apply the exceptions at all.

How is gender more inclusive than sex? It is completely different and using gender negates sex.

If you can change the terms then it becomes a free for all.

This recommendation is not in a statutory code, but employers and service providers should still pay heed to it.

As has been said, the EHRC is a quango. They can be challenged. The recommendation can be challenged. We're not going to just give up, Sarah.

If you choose to use the exceptions, you have to apply them on a case by case basis.

No. This is what the EHRC says. And they actually say in their statement supporting the GRA changes in July that the exemptions "may have to be used on a case by case basis". It's just a specific, biased legal opinion. This is all based on public perception. That can change.