CIPD on inclusion - sex or gender

[HobbyIsCodeForDogging]

I've just received this email about inclusion from the CIPD - Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. This is the professional institute for HR professionals up and down the country.

Of course I noticed that in among the usual list, they'd put gender rather than sex. I wondered how deep this goes within their guidance, their curriculum etc.

How can we take organisations to task if their very source of information and the body that issues HR qualifications is talking about gender rather than sex?

I'm in finance, not HR, so this is not my professional body or area of expertise. I'm also more of an observer and supporter in this issue rather than a campaigner - I feel less equipped and articulate on the issue than (most of) the other people I see/hear/read on it

I wondered if anyone who already campaigns or contacts organisations would be up for looking into this?

Web link for the email and hopefully screenshot attached...

view.comms.cipdmail.com/?qs=4e320f5396848fe932a833ccfa2269f5821f0e1e6a5ab4b4fc95f741059f3647185183fee2f95080c5c61cf9a860b9dea6d0588c66493f290e548bc6b65f56ed6dd171796c2bbd8e5fda878d115bbbd8

Bumping for the evening.

Does anyone know how CIPD are on this sort of thing usually?

I'm only just newly qualified in HR and currently working at a junior level so I'm sure somebody much cleverer than me will be along soon but as far as I understand, both SEX and GENDER identity are protected characteristics I.e. It would be unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their sex or their gender identity, regardless of whether they've had surgery, how they present etc... But I don't believe thats anything particularly new. And fair, nobody deserves to be discriminated against for any reason in a place of work.

But it does seem like they've missed SEX as part of their inclusivity campaign? Which doesn't seem fair.

Sex and Gender reassignment are protected characteristics. Gender Identity is not.

Tired yes, sorry you are right, wrong choice of words. However the acas website says:

gender reassignment does not have to involve any medical supervision. For example, a person who chooses to reassign his or her gender and lives permanently as the opposite sex without having any hormonal or surgical therapy is protected

So surely its the same principle?

There was a Cipd article recently about the challenges of competing protected characteristics, can't recall if it was an email thing or in the magazine. I took some hope from that.

The forums on their website are pretty woke.