Workplace Policies - in particular Transgender

[applepineapple]

After reading today that my workplace (local authority) will be bringing into place a Transgender Policy, I was interested in knowing if other workplaces also have one. Do they adhere to the 2010 Equality Act or are they focused on appeasing the woke?

I will course have my Mermaids/ Stonewall bingo board at the ready once the policy comes out and will definitely be taking back to HR anything which promotes Trans rights over that of women.

Be aware that a lot of workplaces that have had advice from Stonewall are misquoting the Equality Act 2010 and changing the lawful protected characteristics found in the Act by replacing 'sex' with 'gender' or 'gender identity'. Employers do need to be careful to stay within the law and can't cherry pick and rewrite sections of Acts of Parliament. Gender is NOT a protected characteristic. Neither is trans. They are not mentioned in the EA, only 'gender reassignment' which means people who are undergoing or have undergone the process of gender reassignment must not face discrimination for it, and must be treated in no less favourable way than any other member of their sex class.

There are others here that can quote chapter and verse a lot more accurately, but I believe the above is the basics. The Equality Act 2010 does not give transgender people the right to access facilities of their chosen gender, no matter what Stonewall and Mermaids et al say.

Thanks Bazzle, that's very helpful

Employers do need to be careful to stay within the law and can't cherry pick and rewrite sections of Acts of Parliament. Gender is NOT a protected characteristic. Neither is trans. They are not mentioned in the EA, only 'gender reassignment' which means people who are undergoing or have undergone the process of gender reassignment must not face discrimination for it, and must be treated in no less favourable way than any other member of their sex class.

This is what has been confusing me, in terms of public places like swimming pools as well as workplaces. Self ID isn't even law in the UK but places are changing policies as if it is. But if people complain they just get told it's to be 'inclusive' and basically told to deal with it and even sacked or told to leave. How can we actually challenge it if places ignore us? Also doesn't that mean all these places are breaking the law? And if that's the case why are they just allowed to break the law? Is the only way to stop them by suing them?

Apologies for all the questions, this post reminded me I've been wondering about this for ages!

I come back to this time and time again.

What does "gender reassignment" mean in practice. Is it holders of gender recognition certificates or is it someone's first day living as the opposite gender?

For me this is crucial.

I know GC law people say it's holders of the certificate, but I've never seen guidence from official sources conforming that, and without that confirmation we have got self I.D

Policy development should be supported by an Equality Impact Assessment. Check it has been done. It is required to identify any negative impact on the protected characteristics.

Following with interest, our company have invited Stonewall in to give 'Diversity' training.

Please please Google and read the act - I feel that we don't always have it genuinely represented to us by some of the most public figures.

It says that anyone proposing to go through gender reassignment is covered - you don't have to have taken a single medical step, just say that you're thinking about reassignment and then you are covered.

Self-ID has been here since 2004!! So technically anyone who has a trans thought is protected as equally as anyone is protected under the sex characteristic.

Another fight is the untangling of sex and gender which legally mean the same thing in British legal systems.

Employers need to stay within the law but they are able to have policies that go beyond it and their remit to ask employees to behave as they would like is quite broad.

So for example, it’s not unlawful to address a transwoman as sir or use he/him when talking about that person. However your employer is within their rights to have as a policy that you just use everyone’s preferred pronouns (however absurd). A breach of that policy would be likely to be found as a fair reason to dismiss by an employment tribunal - the employer wouldn’t need to invoke the equalities act at all.

The reason I say this is just to suggest that if you disagree with a policy such as the above, you’re barking up the wrong tree to tell your employer it’s not required under the equality act. Lots of employers’ policies go much further.

IIRC in Ireland 'gender identity' is a protected characteristic, along with 'gender'.

We're so woke we're broke.

...seems that the more women were repressed, historically, by a society, the more that society presents itself as wonderful, loving and inclusive (to men).

Right, but the Equality Act protects them from being discriminated against because of their (perceived) trans status. It does not give them any rights that they would not have if they were a non-trans person of their actual sex. For example, it is illegal to exclude a man who has taken any step towards trying to be perceived as a woman from anything he would be included in if he were a man who had not taken such a step. That's all.

Politeness is great and of course should be expected in a work setting, but rights are rights and women's rights have been overridden in the rush to 'inclusiveness' - that is where the EA2010 comes in. Women have rights too. Trans people also have exactly the same rights as anyone else and should not have any of those rights removed, that would be wrong. But they do not have more rights than anyone else and to give them more rights - to impose a 'hierarchy' of rights instead of equality - is also wrong.

Cross post okMaybe

‘Gender reassignment’ Protection comes in from the first day a man decides to adopt womanface (or even if they don’t decide anything but other people think they have). However, it doesn’t entitle a man to be treated as a women (eg single sex spaces) but stops them being treated differently to other men.

However, it doesn’t entitle a man to be treated as a women (eg single sex spaces) but stops them being treated differently to other men.

That's not quite correct. See for example the case of Lawrence v Wills t/a Zeus Sauna/Zeus@71 ET/2604029/09. I've copied the summary below - not my wording, this is current law.

Claimant was undergoing a process of gender reassignment from male to female. She worked as a receptionist at a massage sauna that operated as a meeting place for gay and bisexual men. Her employer required her to attend work presenting as a man, and required her to be addressed as "Marc" rather than "Abigail", feeling that male customers in a state of undress might object to the presence of a woman. An employment tribunal held that requiring the claimant to be called Marc was unwanted conduct relating to sex that had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. The claimant clearly wished to be known as Abigail, and this was "an important part of her real life experience".

Local authorities have to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This means that they have to consider how any policies affect all the groups protected under the Equality Act 2010. How this works in practice depends on which part of the UK you are in. In Wales they have to carry out a formal Equality Impact Assessment, in England they just have to show that they have considered the impact on all protected groups. I'm not sure of the legislation in Scotland and NI.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-equality-duty

It seems like there is a lot of opinion on what 'gender reassignment' actually is in practice. I've looked up the exact working of the Act and a person is protected if they are 'proposing to undergo... a process for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex'.

As Hardgal says, it seems you don't have to have taken any medical steps.

FOI I'm in England.

This is from the EHRC guidance on the PSED for England.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/psed_essential_guide_-_guidance_for_english_public_bodies.pdf

"The general equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the aims of the general equality duty when making decisions and setting policies. To do this, it is necessary for decision-makers to understand the potential impact of their decisions on people with different protected characteristics and to identify potential mitigating steps to reduce or remove adverse impacts. This should help to ensure that the policy is fully effective for different groups of people."

They are legally obliged to comply, and non-compliance can be reported to the EHRC, but I don't know what action they are likely to take. Anything which promotes trans rights to the detriment of any other groups is non-compliant.

The Equality & Human Rights Commission also say that surgery is not necessary as it is a 'personal process, rather than a medical one'

Yes, that's right applepineapple but that does not give a transgender person the right to access the facilities of the 'gender' they are transitioning to (because nobody can ever actually change sex). It appears that this is where Stonewall, Mermaids et al wilfully misread the Equality Act and then promote this wilful misreading.

What should happen is the trans person should be protected from any sort of bullying or discrimination in the facilities of their actual sex. Or that alternative provision is made for them, if that is deemed to be unworkable.

Bazzle Ah yes, so although someone might be covered by the gender reassignment characteristic, ultimately the sex characteristic means that sex segregated facilities should remain so as the person in question cannot change their biological sex. I was beginning to confuse myself!

However, it doesn’t entitle a man to be treated as a women (eg single sex spaces) but stops them being treated differently to other men.

RiddleyW There is nothing in your response to this comment which indicates that this is untrue. The ruling that you quote is about the right of the person to wear 'female' clothing and be known by a female name. It doesn't say that they should have access to the female toilets. Everyone should have the right to dress in their preferred style and be addressed by their preferred name.

I was responding to the principle (that it just means you can’t treat them differently to other men) rather than the example given.