Protected characteristic of gender reassignment

[Macareaux]

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and someone has this characteristic if they are a person who 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."

I wonder if wiser minds than me on here have any views about this. I know the Government has said it won't be making any changes to the EqA but this characteristic seems problematic to me on at least two fronts. Firstly, sex can't be reassigned (and isn't even assigned in the first place!) and, secondly, surely anyone could claim to be 'proposing to undergo a process' even if they have made no changes at all. How would anyone be able to refute such a claim?

It needs rewriting. The protected characteristic should be something along the lines of gender non conformity and include anyone who presents as the opposite gender. It’s such a problematic bit of legislation as is because no, you can’t change sex, and when you start trying to define gender you end up with a set of stereotypes.

What’s needed is a law that reflects biological reality while still protecting people with gender dysphoria from discrimination and protecting anyone who is gender non conforming (for example women being forced to wear high heels to the office.)

It cannot be beyond the wit of man to create legislation that’s biologically accurate, protects transgender people and doesn’t strip women of their sex based rights

That's really helpful Bowl.

It cannot be beyond the wit of man to create legislation that’s biologically accurate, protects transgender people and doesn’t strip women of their sex based rights

It obviously is.

Though not beyond the wit of woman.

"changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Does that mean, women who have a breast reduction or implants are also protected?

What is ‘gender non conformity’ though?

We are all GNC, nobody is 100% masculine or 100% feminine, however that is defined.

When GNC covers everyone, it is meaningless at best and open to abuse at worst.

IMO, as soon as the word ‘gender ‘ is involved, you end up tying yourself in knots.

I’m not a lawyer, so I might be missing something.

Gender non conformity is protected already under anti-sexism laws, though, isn't it? At least in theory? (Does the UK have those?)

Things like an employer wanting to force female employees to wear high heels, for example.

Making women do something that you don't expect men to do is discrimination.

Firing a woman for not wearing make-up if you don't fire men for the same "offense" should also already be illegal.
(Though hard to prove, but that won't change with new laws, unless you make all gnc people unfireable, but that would be a bit overkill.)

What is meant by the phrase 'other attributes of sex'? The people who came up with this must have had something in mind.

I assumed "other attributes of sex" referred to things like name, title, dress, etc.

The Explanatory Notes to the EA rephrase the part about the protected characteristic of sex as meaning 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."

If that is the case, name, or dress just cannot be what was meant by "other characteristics of sex", because some names like Alex, or some modes of dress like trousers, are equally applicable to men and women - they are not a characteristic which is shared only by women, or only by men...

This was discussed quite a bit earlier in the year. My belief is that the characteristic of sex already covers it.

For example if someone is wearing a dress and gets discriminated against because the are male, then they are being discriminated against on the basis of sex.

'gender reassignment' is entirely superfluous.

saivartelija the bit Macareaux posted about isn't asking about "other characteristics of sex" it's asking about "other attributes of sex".

I don't think gender nonconformity is really protected by UK laws. Things like dress codes specific to a gender (and I'm pretty sure I mean gender here, now, though it would have been sex a couple of decades ago) have been allowed and upheld. You would think from the wording of the equalities act that it would protect on that score but in practice, the courts have accepted and upheld different standards for men and women in a number of areas.

I think this protected characteristic does make sense. Like 'race' it cannot be completely defined in terms of the boundaries but it is clear that people are discriminated against on that basis.

Rosa Freedman made a good case for it at the Scottish census evidence session (which is well worth watching). That you need sex as a protected characteristic =biological sex, and gender reassignment (or "transgender status") as a separate one
... Otherwise people push the two categories together into "gender".

I would argue to retain the Gender reassignment PC (and as feminists to support men who are trans absolutely not to be discriminated against compared to any other man), but get rid of the GRC altogether as it is no longer needed with equal marriage.

There was a case in the last couple of years about a worker (City receptionists iirc?) forced to wear heels. I can’t remember the outcome.

I suppose the problem about protecting ting gender identity boils down to definition. Sex is defineable, it’s objective. It can be defined in law. But gender?

You have a few problems.

1. Define gender. What is ‘a female fender identity?’ It boils down to stereotypes

So, in light of 1.

1. How do you codify ‘what awoman should act/dress/present like’ in law.? You are codifying belief. That’s dangerous
2. What would be the repercussions for women who don’t conform to that set of stereotypes that are now written in law as ‘how a woman should be.’?
3. What happens when sex rights and gender rights collide?

In short:
sex is what a woman/female IS
gender is what society says a woman should act like.

There’s a fundamental conflict there because what society wants of women is subjective, changeable with time and place and often not in the best interests of women anyway.

The ideal scenario is one that protects women’s sex based rights as absolute and offers protection for both sexes against discrimination based on them not living up tonsocoetal stereotypes.

How you actually codify that in law, i suspect, is harder than first seems.