How to respond to reply - or not?

[mejon]

As part of a work thing, I had cause to look at the Equality and Diversity page of my local university. (Ignoring the fact that their mentoring scheme for female members of staff is open to 'all who identify as female including TW and non-binary' ) I saw that they had replaced 'Gender Reassignment' when listing the 9 Protected Characteristics with 'Gender Identity'. I emailed to say that this was incorrect and that GR and GI are not one and the same. This is the reply I received today (sorry can't get italics/bold to work):

"You are right, that is the minimum legal requirement in terms of language. However as an institution we have always referred to ‘gender reassignment’ as encompassing ‘gender identity’ as it can be a tricky area to explain, for example, the Equality and Human Rights commission states on Gender Reassignment that:

The Equality Act 2010 says that you must not be discriminated against because you are transsexual, when your gender identity is different from the gender assigned to you when you were born. For example:
• a person who was born female decides to spend the rest of his life as a man
In the Equality Act it is known as gender reassignment. All transsexual people share the common characteristic of gender reassignment.
To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.
You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it.
Therefore for ease of understanding we have often used ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender reassignment (encompassing gender identity)’ as terms as from my experience of delivering training in this area etc it aids understanding. As you can see gender identity is an important facet of the term ‘Gender Reassignment’ as defined by the EHRC.

I will do an audit of the Equality and Diversity webpages and ensure that all terminology is correct as per the act"

So, in that final sentence I think the officer is saying they'll go through and change references to Gender Identity only to Gender Reassignment. Should I be ok with this response or do I need to challenge the assertion further up that GI is the same or a part of GR but that it's easier to call it Identity because it's "tricky to explain"? Help wise-women of FWR!

That's a really odd message. It seems to be maintaining throughout that they are right to have made this change, so that the last sentence - "I will do an audit of the Equality and Diversity webpages and ensure that all terminology is correct as per the act" - looks slightly as though they're just going to keep on the way they have been...

I think I would be replying something along the lines of "great that you'll be changing it back to the correct terminology. Regards."
I wouldn't be getting into a discussion as to the rights and wrongs.

Although I suppose if they're applying the law wrongly, maybe you do need to do a more detailed reply... Sorry, OP, I'm no help at all.

Legally, they must list all nine protected characteristics precisely as written in the text of the Equality Act 2010.

No wording can be changed, as these characteristics are explicitly defined in the EqA and any discrimination claims would be looking at both the terms and the definitions.

Additionally, any organisation is free to add other characteristics they wish to monitor and act on to address inequality, such as being poor for instance which can lead to worse outcomes in certain circumstances.

So your work can list gender identity in addition to gender reassignment.

As for the claim that the former is better understood: while there is a clear definition for gender reassignment both in national and international human rights law, there is none for gender identity. Even the researchers working in the field are still debating what it is, how you get one and what it means to have one.

The EHRC may explain gender reassignment as a term by referring to gender identity, however, the Equality Act itself does not. Neither in the 251 page text of the actual law, nor the 216 page document containing the explanatory notes that advise on how to use the act and navigate situations where people with multiple or different protected characteristics are involved.

The latter document includes gender identity only once, when referring to a "Gender Identity Clinic".

You may wish to ask for your HR department to provide you with a precise definition of gender identity as this would certainly be very useful to have in understanding and following their policies. Especially if it is apparently helpful in delivering training on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Just to add, the quote given by your correspondent as showing the EHRC defining gender reassignment via the use of gender identity is nothing of the sort. In that first sentence they use gender identity to define being transsexual. In a thoroughly incomplete, if not to say incorrect way. (The EHRC then proceeds to quote from the Equality Act itself where the term gender identity is of course not used at all.)

FAOD, the Act itself takes precedence over anything the EHRC writes. The latter was formed to help interpret and implement the Act, not override it.

So your work can list gender identity in addition to gender reassignment.

Should have added:

But not by adding it to the term itself. Gender reassignment must be listed entirely independently from gender identity.

So

-age
-disability
-gender reassignment (encompassing gender identity)

Is incorrect, whereas

-age
-disability
-gender reassignment

"plus" or "and also" or "additionally"

-gender identity

Would be correct.

Just say thanks for your assistance with correcting this error.

Tell them they can't just rewrite an Act of Parliament to suit themselves

Thanks all - particularly CharleyParley for your detailed explanation - you've clarified what I thought was the case in a way I could never have expressed.