Remploy's equal opportunities policy excludes sex as a protected characteristic

[RussellSprout]

I went on a course with Remploy yesterday.

They seem to have completely excluded sex from their equal opportunities policy.

This is the policy

Remploy has an Equal Opportunities Policy to ensure all employees and customers are treated equitably and as individuals regardless of colour, race, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, political belief, social or economic class, marital or parental status, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability

Is this normal now? Is this the erasure of sex based protection?

I'm half hoping some numpty has just confused sex and gender and is using the terms interchangeably but surely this means that eventually any sex based differences between men and women are excluded from protection on the basis that a man who feels like a woman is a woman and doesn't have the sex based difference, therefore there is no difference between women and men?

Surely the whole point of sex based protection is on the fact that male bodies and female bodies are different in the first place and female bodied people have historically needed protection/faced discrimination because of those differences particularly in the world of work which Remploy seeks to address inequality and help disadvantaged people back into work?

Grrrr, I don't want to be lumped in with male bodied people when it comes to protection from discrimination, whether they identify as a woman or not!

they have lumped 'sex' and 'gender recognition' together under gender. I would challenge this.

Loads of the legal precedents still use 'gender' and not 'sex'. I am constantly telling clients to change their wording since a certain section of society now thinks the two terms mean something different whereas for years they have been used interchangeably (and still can be used interchangeably as far as most of the population is concerned).

It isn't a deliberate exclusion of sex as a characteristic

Cloudtree it may not be deliberate, but if a male bodied person identifying as a woman is lumped in with a female bodied person under female 'gender' then surely any sex based differences become irrelevant? How can females be treated differently if the comparator group (males) is included within the same category?

males are always included in the same category even if you call it sex.

And males identifying as females are protected in any event under gender reassignment (if read with the surrounding guidance)

Its sloppy drafting and as I say I am constantly telling clients to change their wording now but I don't think the wording excludes sex as a protected characteristics, they've simply called it gender. If anything, they've excluded gender reassignment.

I ran a training course last week with some very senior HR people (director level),. They were all still using "gender" as the polite way of saying "sex". Some were quite surprised when I said we should stress that its sex that is the protected characteristic.

I don't think the issue has really even registered to many who don't hang out on MN!

I think it is deliberate as they have not mentioned gender reassignment (sorry, I said recognition upthread) at all - they are lumping 2 competing characteristics together.

Thats my concern Weepingwillow does gender now include trans along with women as a sex class.

I do wonder if half of the gender-sex confusion is because people (in work situations, training courses etc) don't like to say the word sex? So gender has become a polite term to mean sex, and most people don't realise that in modern times

gender= boy/girl feelz
sex = what genitals you have

Surely they have no right to change the law. That seems to be effectively what they are doing by changing the wording.

I'd say gender = masculine/feminine
sex = male/female

I do wonder if half of the gender-sex confusion is because people (in work situations, training courses etc) don't like to say the word sex? So gender has become a polite term to mean sex, and most people don't realise that in modern times

It is in many cases. I have educated some of my colleagues about this.

It’s frustrating because many forms are electronic and you can’t just cross out gender and write sex.

Even when they do record sex it is ‘assigned sex at birth’. My sex was ‘determined’ 9 months earlier than that when one particular sperm hit the jackpot.

they have lumped 'sex' and 'gender recognition' together under gender

They have; assuming "gender" is just a euphemism for sex.

males are always included in the same category even if you call it sex

Discrimination on the grounds of sex protects men as well if they are being discriminated against just because they are men. You might say - "that never happens" but a female employer picking female employees over equally well qualified male employees is being discriminatory.

I also assumed, as soon as I read it and realised they had removed the two competing characteristics, that they had deliberately moved to self-ID’d “gender”. If it was merely a case of gender being used as a synonym for sex, then gender reassignment would be in there.

A simple email is likely to enable them to correct their incorrect policy.

Many councils, charities, schools & organisations have this issue.
Most have corrected once it has been pointed out.

See WPUK
womansplaceuk.org/sex-is-a-protected-characteristic/

I also assumed, as soon as I read it and realised they had removed the two competing characteristics, that they had deliberately moved to self-ID’d “gender”.

I think this is what's happening. The GRA won't need to be changed, because so many organisations are already allowing people to self-id their 'gender'.

What they are doing here is allowing protection on the basis of self-identified 'gender', which means women and transwomen are considered as one group, men and transmen as another. This is actually against the Equality Act, which considers women and transmen as one group and men and transwomen as another. Transmen and transwomen have an additional PC of 'gender reassignment' to protect them compared to someone of their own sex who doesn't have that PC.

I would challenge this. If organisations get away with doing this, we will end up with self-id becoming law without changes to the GRA.

Exactly. It's legally inaccurate and it needs challenging every time.

Lots of policies are errors made in good faith as they have been copied from trusted sources.

A polite clear challenge with the information WPUK etc provide about the 2010 Equality Act is very effective and is protecting any organisation which has policies based on incorrect representation of law.

I'm not keen on contacting Remploy myself as I've just started a new job and the course was put on by my employer and I don't want anything going back to them, but if anyone wants to contact them, please do! I'm sure the policy is on their website.

I have a search on their website and can find no mention of the protected characteristics at all, except in reference to a different body (when they are listed correctly).

It's not always an accident one of the councils that used gender instead of sex it was a deliberate move brought about by a trans Councillor. Who wanted and meant it to be gender, and have sex protections removed. This was to enable trans people, read trans women, to access services for their gender not their sex.

I agree most of the time it's probably being used as a euphemism but by no means all of the time.

It's not always an accident one of the councils that used gender instead of sex it was a deliberate move brought about by a trans Councillor. Who wanted and meant it to be gender, and have sex protections removed.

Nowhere was this made clearer than Cambridge City Council.
Sarah Brown (Lib Dem cllr, Stonewall & TRA) instigated changes to the councils' policy almost as soon as the Equality Act was passed.

See threads discussing how this was challenged successfully by Cllr Anne Sinnott:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3376567-anne-sinnott-vindicated-she-was-right

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

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3330494-Cambridge-councillor-resigns-from-post-and-leaves-Labour-Party-over-betrayal-of-women-read-her-letter-here

Yes it was sarah brown I was thinking of.

We should be careful not to give too much benefit of the doubt.

We should be careful not to give too much benefit of the doubt.

The important thing (in the first instance) is that policies are corrected in line with law.

TRAs use policies citing gender/gender identity as leverage to change others which correctly use sex & gender reassignment.

If it was merely a case of gender being used as a synonym for sex, then gender reassignment would be in there

They have missed out gender reassignment. If you have 2 candidates of the female gender - one of whom is , for the sake of this post , "cis" and 1 who is trans and they are equally well qualified but you don't pick the trans candidate simply because she looks like Danielle Muscato that candidate has been discriminated against due to gender reassignment. But as gender reassignment is missed out there is no discrimination.

Three factors at play, IMO:

1. A lot of people just feel squeamish about the word "sex" and associate it with "sexual intercourse", i.e. not something to be used in public discussion

2. What PP have pointed out about some people with an agenda actively pushing for the replacement - and 1) happens to be rather helpful in that endeavour

3. Many people (and, yes, I mostly mean "men") just not really being aware of the extent of sexism in modern society. Point in case: just today I was speaking with one of my bosses. Lovely man, middle aged dad, extremely supportive for all his flaws and absolutely gutted when I told him about a very minor incident of unwanted touching that had happened to me (in the context of something else). And very apologetic when his wife apparently confirmed to him just how normal this was for women. If you manage to reach middle age in blissful ignorance, how would you even know why it matters to women to have it spelled out that being a woman comes with certain negative implications and the right to be protected from them?