Equality policies no longer listing “sex” as a protected characteristic

[GoldHat]

Evening all,

Today I noticed in one of the handouts given to me on my course, under the Equality and Diversity statement for the awarding body, the following statement, which listed on what grounds they oppose discrimination:

“The purpose of this policy is to set out our commitment to ensuring we adhere to legislation and regulation requirements. We fully support the principle of equal opportunities and oppose all unlawful or unfair discrimination on the grounds of ability, age, colour, culture, disability, domestic circumstances, employment status, gender, marital/civil partnership status, nationality, political orientation, racial origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, social background or any other grounds or status.”

I noticed there was no mention of “sex” so went to legislation.gov.uk ( www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4) and found the following nine characteristics:

The protected characteristics
The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

•   age; 
  

•   disability; 
  

•   gender reassignment; 
  

•   marriage and civil partnership; 
  

•   pregnancy and maternity; 
  

•   race; 
  

•   religion or belief; 
  

•   sex; 
  

•   sexual orientation. 
  

As you can see sex is on there, but the policy of the awarding body does not list sex as a protected characteristic.

I then looked at the Equality and Diversity policy for the centre where I am completing my course and on there, they have the following statement:

“The Equality Act 2010 introduces the term “protected characteristic” to refer to aspects of a person’s identity explicitly protected from discrimination. Nine are identified and they are Race, Disability, Gender, Age, Sexual orientation, Religion and belief, Gender reassignment, Pregnancy / maternity, Marriage / civil partnership. The protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership is not included in the education duties of the Act.”

Again, sex is not listed as a protected characteristic.

I have then looked at the school policy my child attends and their equality policy says the following:

“XXXXXX School seeks to ensure that no member of the school community or any person through their contact with the school are discriminated by any of the following characteristics:
Age
Disability
Gender Reassignment
Marriage and Civil Partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Gender
Sexual orientation
(Taken from ‘Protected Characteristics’ (Equality Act 2010)”

Again they have listed the nine characteristics in the same sequence and word for word as the list on legislation.gov.uk; except when it comes to the 8th characteristic on their list, which is listed as “gender” whereas the Equality Act 2010 uses the word “sex.” So it would appear the change from sex to gender was a deliberate change.

So that’s 3 separate policies of that have replaced the word “sex” with the word “gender” which I have found within the space of 30mins.

I should think there are many other business and companies and schools with similar changes, where the protected characteristic “sex” has been deleted and replaced by the word “gender.”

I must admit seeing them delete the word “sex” and use gender instead is really annoying me, to the point I have contacted them to query their policy and I have been asked to email them my concerns.

Am I right to be annoyed by this? Or are companies and businesses and institutions allowed to do this and refer to sex as gender?

Thoughts please. Thanks.

It’s annoying because when most people say gender they mean it as a synonym for sex. Then the trans radical position will turn around and interpret it to mean gender identity.

I think organizations should be absolutely clear and define gender as biological/natal sex when that’s what they mean. Then, use “sex stereotypes“ and “gender roles” to talk about the feminist meaning of “gender” (which let’s be honest will never become mainstream).

I contacted my local council and they changed their wording to Sex (gender) which I have let go for now.

Unfortunately I think it is a case of challenging it every time you see it.

When I contacted the NHS about the use of gender instead of sex on a form I sent a fairly soft email saying that while I realised that sex and gender were used interchangeably in the past, current WHO definitions are clear that sex is biological and gender is socially constructed. Had a response but nothing in depth yet

www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/knowledge/glossary/en/

Just to add, I don’t normally read these policies. It’s just I have been reading the M&S thread over the past few days and have become aware how the protected characteristic “sex” no longer seems to be protected when it comes to women’s spaces and women’s rights.

So when I saw the policy on the course handbook when the tutor was going through it today, I read the statement and noticed sex wasn’t on there. I must’ve read the statement at least 10 times to check it definitely wasn’t on there.

Couldn’t believe it when I realised it had not been included, to the point I began doubting if sex was still a protected characteristic. But going on the legislation website, I can see it definitely is one of the 9 protected characteristics.

I think it's important we challenge this each time we see it. I think this is what the LGB Alliance call 'Stonewall Law' where Stonewall have been telling organisations that the protected characteristic is gender/gender identity rather than sex? We know Stonewall have been lobbying for the removal of 'sex' as a protected characteristic so this would make sense.

Unfortunately it looks like Stonewall and co have been misrepresenting the law and getting policies changed as a result, because a lot of these organisations probably just take Stonewall's word for it. This is my understanding of it anyway.

It is being changed by stealth. I think FWRLurker is spot on in that the assumption is that it will be taken to mean gender identity.

Very frustrating. I had a sports registration form asking for my child's gender identity (no question for sex of said child). Child hasn't been registered.

I think we need a big campaign about this called Sex not Gender or something. Because a lot of people don't know the difference and the lobby groups have taken advantage of that to basically remove women's rights by stealth.

Regarding the above, I queried it and was snippily told to look at their transgender policy and that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the EA. To which I replied that so was sex, but gender identity (which is what they asked for) is not!

Yes, the actual protected characteristics are:

Sex
Gender reassignment

'Gender' or 'Gender Identity' are not protected characteristics.

I point it out when I see it - it bothers me.

The trouble is, gender reassignment is such a broad term.

For years, in my head it meant SRS and I was surprised and horrified to learn that it means nothing of the sort.

I think you're right. They need to include sex.

Actually horrified is a bit strong - but I think I am correct in that it can mean social transition only, which is neither here nor there when you are looking at protecting single sex spaces.

Check out the Small Acts of Rebellion thread where we've been emailing where this 'mistake' occurs. I've had several NHS Trusts change their webpages when it's pointed out. Wherever they misquote the Equality Act they have to change it back. FairPlay for Women does a good template you can find on Small Acts. But depressingly where policy is written more vaguely it's hard to get changed. A major NHS document just changed sex to gender... Drives me nuts. But you can quote the Act and many organisations cooperate. I suspect they have had politicising nonsense training from the likes of Stonewall telling them they can just rewrite... They can't.

I pointed this out to my Borough and County Councils and I'm pleased to say the wording in their Equality policies was changed, so it's worth doing.

Yes write to them and tell them to update their policies. I've done this several times. It started with s hook forms which led to school policy which led to local council. They all deleted sex. It is not acceptable, so yes you should be annoyed and you are right to complain. It is a slow chip, chip to get people to accept that gender identity should replace sex.

It's incorrect and we need to challenge it. Everywhere. If an organisation or individual can't get the basic law correct, especially when purporting to train others then it calls into question whether the rest of their work is incorrect, lies or discriminatory.
It ought to be really serious to deliberately mislead people about the law in this way. Although as it often comes from the very powerful (looking at the BBC and Stonewall as prime examples) it will be down to those without the £££ to challenge it.

Ditto in this document too

corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/plan-a-our-approach/mns-people-principles.pdf

Treating everyone equally regardless of age, gender, gender reassignment, colour, ethnic or national origin, disability, hours of work, nationality, religion or belief, marital or civil partner status, disfigurement, political opinions or sexual orientation. We treat all colleagues with dignity and respect and expect colleagues to treat each other and our customers in the same way.

Ooops sorry, wrong thread

Interesting. I wonder if shareholders can request topics for the agm?

M & S removing sex from the protected characteristics? Completely predictable.

Clicky link

corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/plan-a-our-approach/mns-people-principles.pdf

Uhuh... corporate.marksandspencer.com/contact/headquarters

Well I once had to ask the EHRC to change a document to say sex instead of gender (referring to equality act) so there isn't much hope really.
(they did change it - but imagine that they needed Joe Bloggs to tell them they'd made that mistake in the first place).

The EHRC are one of the government organisations that have been totally regulatory captured. Their guidelines for schools are truly awful in terms of safeguarding and the safety and welfare of girls. But they don't give a fuck.

we need a big campaign about this called Sex not Gender

Yes. The trouble is, as has been pointed out, 'Gender' is such a vague term, and different people define it in different ways. Is there a governmental definition?