Law Gazette article argues that EA should be updated to include gender identity not gender reassignment

[stumbledin]

If the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ was amended to ‘gender identity’, this would incorporate the broader spectrum of the trans and non-binary communities. Under Jersey law, the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ specifically includes the intersex community. The act should be amended to include people born with intersex characteristics.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/a-decade-of-the-equality-act-2010/5103088.article

Personally, I don't mind if there is a protected characteristic of gender identity per se. Although i would like an evidence based approach.

It's just when it's conflated as sex , or when the protected characteristic of sex must give way to that identity that I get a tad riled.

If you look at the current protected characteristics, they are:
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Despite how things started, for example a transsexual undergoing medical transition, gender reassignment now stands out in its vagueness. But compared to gender identity it is an exercise in clarity.

Gender identity is about how someone perceives themselves. Which can vary from day to day, if not from hour to hour. I'd expect it to be a nightmare in terms of policing by the genderists. I mean, look how many of them carry on in general?

I think that the EA should be enforced correctly before we start making changes to it. We should perhaps stop charities misrepresenting it too.

I think that the EA should be enforced correctly before we start making changes to it. We should perhaps stop charities misrepresenting it too.

Exactly.

I Am More and more convinced that this creeping encroachment will only be halted by women en masse announcing at work , at play, ANYWHERE , that they identify as male some days and will use men’s facilities. And then doing so.

This step would be enacted specifically so that it could be argued that sex should be removed entirely.

This is straight out of the TRA playbook.

First, write into law that everyone has a 'gender identity'. It's compulsory.
Second, have the law recognise that 'female' 'girl' and 'woman' are primarily gender identities, rather than terms to recognise sex.
Third, argue that sex is now a redundant, exclusionary term, and we don't need it as a protected characteristic any more. Don't worry, all females are perfectly adequately covered under gender identity.
Fourth, now that actual females are legally indistinguishable from actual males in absolutely every conceivable circumstance, the law is set to more fiercely punish any woman who asserts she is not the same as any other woman.
Also, those people who have NO gender identity on account of they know it doesn't exist, are utterly stripped of any protection under the law and are non-women.

Now, about that exclusionary language in the maternity & pregnancy characteristic...

Surely gender identity would be easier to recognise and manage than gender reassignment?

Gender R is incredibly vague - the person doesn't actually need to do or be anything for this 'characteristic' to be comme something everyone has to respect and defend, regardless of whether others are aware of it or believe it exists. Whereas Gender I is so much clearer to define: anything that transgresses gender norms or gender stereotypes for the sex of that person.

With Gender I as the protected characteristic, a man who wears a dress or calls himself Jane, for example, may not be discriminated against for not fitting the expected norms for men. He remains a man, has no claim to women's spaces, but may not be excluded from men's spaces. Similarly, a hirsute woman may not be discriminated against for not fitting the expected norms for women. She remains a woman, has no claim to men's spaces, but may not be excluded from women's spaces.

Yet another load of rubbish.

Gender identity is even more vague than reassignment, it's like including personality as a protected characteristic.

Plus everything Barracker said. It's a precursor to removing sex as a protected characteristic.

Don't agree with that at all. Gender Presentation perhaps so that you can't get discriminated against for how you present. I think that perhaps is at least definable.

At the same time I want to EA sured up around sex

But then, if Gender Identity or Gender Presentation are protected characteristics, what's to stop all presentations being protected? Is that a bad thing? Or is it ever acceptable to refuse to employ this person? (I've no idea who he is BTW. I just googled facial tattoos.)

The Women & Equalities Select Committee has already adopted Gender Identity in its remit: that specific wording has been in place since 2015.

The Women and Equalities Committee was appointed by the House of Commons on 3 June 2015 to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Equalities Office (GEO).

The Committee fills "a gap" in previous accountability arrangements - the Minister for Women and Equalities and the GEO will now be held to account by a select committee for the Government's performance on equalities (sex, age, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, pregnancy and maternity, marriage or civil partnership status) issues. The Committee joins more than thirty Parliaments worldwide with dedicated equalities committees.

The creation of an Equalities Committee was recommended by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in Parliament in their July 2014 report on Improving Parliament: Creating a better and more representative House

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/role/

I think that the EA should be enforced correctly before we start making changes to it. We should perhaps stop charities misrepresenting it too.

Yes this. If the existing characteristics cannot be adequately protected then the last thing we should be doing is making it more complex.

Having said that, something which has been mentioned on FWR before was the idea of making gender non-conformity, rather than gender identity, have some kind of protection. I'm reminded of Sophie Lancaster and the laws her parents fought for regarding sub-cultures/goth culture.

If gender non-conformity were protected, that would cover not only trans people, but non-binary people and some men and women as well.

I have no idea how/if this idea would actually work, but it makes more sense to me than some indefinable inner feelings being protected.

*If gender non-conformity were protected, that would cover not only trans people, but non-binary people and some men and women as well.
*
This is what I was referring to re Gender Identity. Acceptance of a person's presentation, rather than being forced to participate in their belief.

But I'm not convinced it's a good idea.

June 2018 James Kirkup evidence embedded thread:
(extracts)
"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.
I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces” (continues)
Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”. (continues)
July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

But I'm not convinced it's a good idea.

Me neither. Mainly because it still relies on stereotypes. It does tend to lead one to the position that it's better to protect people based on people's actual characteristics rather than their how they identify.

Not to worry, as it is something that could help more than just transpeople, I doubt they'll be campaigning for it. Just like additional, unisex spaces aren't being campaigned for even though there are lots of groups of people who would find them useful.