A thread to discuss whether the legal language that is often used can be improved

[BuzzShitbagBobbly]

"It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

This is a clunky formal legal phrasing that really jars in otherwise clear or informal text. I think it could be a lot more powerful if it was written in plain English. Obviously sometimes the exact legal wording is needed, but mostly, it is the underlying concept that needs to be quickly understood by Joe and Josie Public.

Herewith a couple of starting suggestions along those lines for discussion.

1. "Where there is a justifiable and reasonable basis to restrict access to a specific sex, for reasons of safety, privacy or dignity (i.e exclude transgender people of the opposite sex), this is a legal right. The law was written specifically to ensure that was the case."

2. "It is 100% legally enforceable to have spaces which are restricted to females only, regardless of any transgender or gender reassignment status. This means (for example) trans-identifying males could be prohibited from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable."

3. "The Equality Act deliberately included clear exemptions where people of one sex can be lawfully prohibited from going into spaces for the other sex. This is regardless of any self-identified transgender or gender reassignment status. Such spaces include changing rooms toilets or other spaces where the expectation is for a women-only space and women may be unclothed or otherwise vulnerable in them."

MNHQ please note this is an exercise in how wording could be phrased to be clear and accessible. It’s not a ploy to get round the use of any banned words or phrases

(starting a fresh thread, because I was derailing another one with this)

The phrase you quote doesn’t just seem clunky to me. It doesn’t appear to say what I think they intended it to say.

"It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

Is the discrimination “on the basis of gender reassignment”? I don’t think it is. I think the discrimination is on the basis of sex, but they are pointing out this is still allowed under some circumstances despite any process of gender reassignment.

Have I misunderstood?

Your versions: I prefer statements 1&3.

Thanks Prion.

Is the discrimination “on the basis of gender reassignment”? I don’t think it is. I think the discrimination is on the basis of sex, but they are pointing out this is still allowed under some circumstances despite any process of gender reassignment.

Have you misunderstood? I honestly don't know, because maybe I have too! The above is little more than a sequence of letters we all use almost without thinking now. I think it is quite impenetrable to a newcomer, which is why I feel so strongly about using better language.

There are others too. I'll try and set aside some time this weekend to think about them and possible alternatives too.

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

This is a another clunky section which could be made much plainer and clearer.