Challenging employers' E&D monitoring form - what should I be asking?

[Outcrop]

I work for a large regulatory organisation which really should know better, but which has removed 'sex' from its E&D monitoring form, replaced it with 'gender' and given three options (Female/Male/Prefer not to say and Prefer to Self Describe with a little box where you can write in whatever gender you think you are ). There is an additional question: 'Do you identify as Trans?' with three options: yes/no/prefer not to say.

I queried the lack of a 'sex' option with a senior HR bod and was told 'we are now required to give the option for candidates to self describe. This was recommended by Stonewall and our LGBTQ+ network.'

I went back more forcefully and pointed out that gender, unlike sex, is not a protected characteristic, and that they are not in fact 'required' to make this change. I also mentioned that Stonewall was a lobbying organisation, not an authoritative source of policy guidance, and that losing the ability to count the men and women you employ drives a coach and horses through your ability to e.g. report on the gender pay gap, plan services etc.

HR bod has responded thus:

'The option to self-describe for sex and sexual orientation is recommended by expert organisations in this area which is why we provide the option for candidates/staff to select as it ensures we are following best practice. These are the only two areas that can be covered by this option.

'We still record and do a great deal of analysis on our workforce profile comparing male and female and use this for our gender pay reporting. The wording of the question does not impact our ability to report on this and the numbers of those that would chose to self-describe are small.

'We also continue to protect staff who have a protected characteristic and reporting as ‘gender’ not ‘sex’ does not impact this.

She's invited me to ring her to chat about this, and I've really got the bit between my teeth now. I want to hammer home the point that sex =/= gender, and query what equality impact assessment they conducted when they made this change on the advice of 'expert organisations' (ie Stonewall, and All About Trans, who have 'trained' a large number of our staff).

Is there anything else I should be asking/saying? I'm sure there must be a handy guide somewhere for people who want to challenge their employers about these kinds of changes - I'd be very grateful for any hints.

Tell then in a future sex discrimination claim, the lawyer for a claimant could use their policy/equality monitoring form as background evidence to suggest in cross examination that

1. it was a working environment that downplayed sex as a protected characteristic by essentially not mentioning it
2. broadening the protected class to include those legally not entitled to be in it; and
3. that their equality training and monitoring was not best practice because it did not accurately reflect current law.

This is also relevant to liability of company for their staff's behaviour under s109 Equality Act. It provides a defence for an employer for discriminatory behaviour of an employee if they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination by their employer from happening.

It may be worth mentioning that the current movement in the more extreme parts of trans ideology is to say that an individual is not trans because the definition of woman or man includes them already. Also, many trans people might prefer not to say that they are trans given the option, so it is impossible to know whether everyone who says they are female or male (but does not tick the trans box) is in fact of that sex.

All part of the words being rendered meaningless problem.

I like that a lot justice, thanks.

And absolutely, Pale, this is the bit I don't get. Surely yer actual trans person will just tick man/woman anyway, according to how they identify? In the current climate they need hardly fear any repercussions.