Council policy

[MsMarvellous]

In light of my rapid education and steep learning curve I thought I'd check out my own council's equal opportunities policy.

They specifically remind us that it's sex protected and have said this was formerly gender and so the implication being they have changed this.

That's good right? This could be used properly, alongside the actual EA, to support any discussion with other bodies in our region who are NOT adhering properly and are granting men access to women's roles.

Brilliant

Sounds like some good mumsnetter at work

I checked my council and they have "sex (gender)". I think yours is better than mine!

The whole 'perceived to have this characteristic' thing - Can people who are self identifying as trans use that to claim they could be perceived to have Gender reassignment?

My understanding is that Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic - as in if you have a GRC. Self IDing trans people are not included in that group. But could they be considered to be in it, if they might be perceived as having a GRC?

I don't know what impact this has/doesn't have. If a male has a GRC, can they still be excluded from female sex spaces? Right??

Hmmm. Interesting point @Selfraising. I don't know the answer. For someone to be "perceived" as a woman outside a GRC I think it would be hard to justify if that person was just a bearded bloke in a skirt with lippy on. As the world is currently ridiculous though who knows!

There are some legal experts on here but from what I understand a male with a GRC and a female birth certificate (i.e. a transwoman) can be excluded from specific services that are female-only. These are the so-called single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act 2010.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies to anybody who is proposing to undergo a change of their 'gender'. So no GRC necessary to have this protected characteristic. You also have to be aware that this is about discrimination law - having a protected characteristic means you should not be treated less favourably than somebody without that protected characteristic.

I don't know whether the scenario 'bearded bloke with skirt and lippy on' (not my words, merely quoting) has come up in discrimination law yet. It would be an interesting test case. Does such a person have the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' or not? My hunch would be that it would be extremely hard to prove that such a person does not have the characteristic. But I am not a legal scholar.

I may be in a minority here, but why does (formerly gender) have to be there at all? It could read as if the EqA2010 'formerly' mentioned gender, not sex.

I would be asking them to remove that part completely. It is utterly irrelevant and confusing.

Gender shouldn't be there at all. It was never gender. Always sex. Not (gender) either.

Yes in some circumstances we are legally allowed to discriminate against ALL males.
Womens sports is one I think that's now being ignored.

It could read as if the EqA2010 'formerly' mentioned gender, not sex

Yes, and being the cynic I am, I could see that being used as 'evidence' of the false stripping of trans rights narrative being played out. Instead of the redefining of the actual law on the sly by Stonewall.

Interesting to see different interpretations- I had read it as sex (formerly mislabelled as gender) suggesting that they understand the difference.

It was only "formerly gender" if they were following made up law. It's always been "sex".