Help - work misrepresenting EA2010 & bringing in Gendered Intel

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

Looking for some help on discussing some things at work.
While I feel it is time to put my head above the parapet I do want to ensure this is done in the most clear and factual manner to reduce any blowback. I've tried searching on Mumsnet and wider interwebs but not found exactly what I'm looking for.

I've seen that my organisation (which is in the public sector) misstates the protected characteristic of sex as Gender. Is this a breach of their public sector duty? Can someone point out somewhere that specifically states that so that I could send a link to them that is from an official govt source?

Also my work is bringing in Gendered intelligence to do training, which is something I've feared for a while. I recall seing threads discussing issues with their materials and I know they were key in lobbying on GRA reform. Can someone point me to concrete examples where they have sexist/factually incorrect materials especially if it misstates legal requirements around equality act/employee provisions (e.g. single sex provisions). I want to challenge the choice of provider, I am sure they were chosen due to personal recommendation rather than any objective assessment of their training materials.

I don't think I would be fired for it but honestly these days I feel you can't be too careful
Maya's appeal can't come soon enough.

Re. the first point, I found a simple statement of "new guidance looks great, except for one minor detail - the Equalities Act lists as protected characteristics "sex" and "gender reassignment." They changed the documents.

As for tackling the choice of gendered intelligence, this is a bit trickier. I might be tempted to say "can we maybe have a broader initiative to cover all bases, including race, sex, disability, etc?" and suggest training from ACAS specifically on the legal framework. So you don't attack GI directly, you just point out that their remit isn't wide enough.

From a child protection perspective - especially if you are public sector - maybe ask if your employer thinks working with a group that holds a furtive swimming activity (there is no location given) for ages 8 to 25 is in keeping with your safeguarding policies:

genderedintelligence.co.uk/swimming

"Wear what you want to swim, so long as your bottom half is covered."

This thread might help as it covered a similar issue www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3994043-Is-this-right-Council-not-including-sex

But basically what they are doing is not in line with the law or they are actually flouting the law!

Gender is NOT a protected characteristic.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

And if they are bringing in Gendered Itelligence say you think they should be in Fawcett of Centre for Women's Justice as they are showing anti sex bias! And they are entrenching that bias by inviting in a group known to be hostile to women's sex based rights.

(Keep copies of any emails sent in relation to this.)

I just emailed my HR team a low key as I could, to say that there might have been a drafting mix up on the protected characteristics in the policy. I linked to a source doc
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1
They changed it back to match the EqAct wording without any fuss. I figured that even the super woke people at work can’t misrepresent the actual law when they’ve had it pointed out in black and white to them. So far so good.

Well done!

I don't think the Equality act page is that new, but it's hard to tell, I hadn't seen this particular version before. It's not an accidental word switch either. Without being outing it's not a word list but a graphic from an external company with Gender and Gender identity as the two instead of Sex and Gender reassignment.
I'm going to use the point that any external providing materials needs to be vetted to make sure it is legally correct. As I said I think GI have been chosen through a personal connection/networking so I want to be delicate but factual in pointing out why they are not the best choice. Saying some of what they say is not legally correct makes it more likely they will reconsider. It's already been announced in an organisational email that they're coming in
This is all part of a wider diversity initiative sparked by BLM which I'm glad to see, but disappointed that money is being diverted to gender propaganda instead of addressing the woeful black & ethnic minority representation in the staff.

This is what Packingsoapandwater posted on a thread about raising the issue with these policies with your MP:

I am heavily involved in local governance. My advice with this is to be brutal and clinical.

It is only when you put their arse on the line that they stop bullshitting, and that inevitably involves financial liability of some sort. At the moment, there are no real world consequences for holding a position that ideologically opposes single-sex spaces -- so you have to nail it to the door.

Ask your MP if she will personally accept liability (political, financial, and legal) for any criminal offence that occurred due to the eradication of single-sex spaces in favour of mixed sex spaces in the climate created by the self-id legislation she supports.

Ask her if she will step down if such an incident occurs. If not, why not?

Ask her if she would be willing to publicly defend mixed-sex spaces in the aftermath of such an incident, remembering that the single-sex spaces that would be affected also extend to hospital wards, psychiatric wards, prisons, certain healthcare clinics (particularly sexual health), homeless and migrant refuges, and sleeping quarters in residential children's homes and elderly care homes.

Ask her if she would be prepared to print her opposition to single-sex facilities, particularly hospital wards, on her re-election campaign literature.

Ask her if she accepts her support of self-id legislation could be perceived as an attack on the rights of religiously conservative women, particularly BAME women. And if not, why not? Does she think that such women deserve to be informed that this is her position before the next general election?

Again, ask her if she thinks that her opposition to single-sex spaces could be construed as a form of institutional racism against women and children of Islamic, Hindu and Jewish heritage.

Ask if she accepts your letter as evidence that she had been made aware of the potential safeguarding issues inherent in self-id legislation.

Don't be wordy. Fire these points like bullets. In fact, put them in bullet points.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3964332-MP-response-In-shock

Although you need a different approach, because this is your work, I do think many of these points can be adopted to draft a note to your HR department, especially the question about openly discriminating against BAME people (as those from a number of religious groups) by abolishing facilities they particularly depend on. And then pick one or two points to start with.

I would probably first of all approach this like DateLoaf, because I think that is a non-combative approach that may serve as a timely reminder to your HR department to check the legal basis of this new policy. If they correct the protected characteristics, you can then refer to them much more easily throughout.

If they don't and because in my view it doesn't matter whether they call them guidelines or whether these are contractual obligations, it may be worth pointing out that these new guidelines do constitute new staff management and workplace policies, overriding those that were in place when you were employed. So when your conditions change, asking where your needs were considered (or better yet, where your protected group was considered), is legitimate. And asking for an Equality Impact Assessment where they have considered the possible and likely impact on other protected groups not sharing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is entirely reasonable.

I would not say anything about Gendered Intelligence, but I would ask when representatives for the other protected characteristics will be invited, what the timetable is and who will be responsible for integrating the new guidelines with those in place for all protected characteristics. And if there aren't any others, let them know you're looking forward to seeing guidance about disability, race, religion, age etc.

But don't do any of that if your employment status is precarious. If that is the case, either find others to address this together with (say by forming an Equality Act Compliance Staff Team or a women's rights committee) or craft a letter and post it anonymously.

Aargh, sorry wrong thread

(Or to be precise, I mixed up two threads in my response, because there is another one about workplace policies on the go right now.) I hope that maybe there is something here you can use anyway.

And sorry again for the mix up.

Yes there's no talk of mixed sex toilets yet, but I can feel it coming, especially if GI come in and say we are failing to be inclusive by not having them.
They did a one off session before lockdown for a team and I've seen pronouns appearing in signatures since
It's very much an organisation where people will fall over backwards to accommodate whatever they say. I'm not at risk but I don't want to just get labelled a bigot and ignored forever more, hence why I'd like to focus on the legal issues to force their hand.

GI were the organisation whose advice resulted in “Karen” white being put in a women’s prison and women being sexually assaulted as a result- why does your org think they’re reputable and suitable?

I have a query on this. If an organisation (in my case dd's school) lists gender and gender identity instead of sex, but doesn't explicitly say they are quoting the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, can I still challenge this as misrepresenting the law? (all of the other characteristics listed are as per the Equality Act, but the act itself is never mentioned).

If you are refering to the link I gave you it is the timeline of the Act and is therefore the definitive definition at the moment.

If you follow the links from the page it also shows additional information about how the protected characteristics interact.

There is no other EA at the moment apart from the 2010 one.

But this is the one trans activists want to change and it shows how sucessful they have been in making people think change has happened, eg self identity.

ValancyRedfern - I think you would have to ask why they have the list ie for what purpose.

Again as it is a school they should be operating within the existing law.

The horrible truth is they dont actually know so pointing them in the direction of the EA could be helpful and they would want to know as "educators" that they are not misinforming their students.

ValancyRedfern
It depends where they say it. Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for any school to discriminate between pupils on grounds of disability, race, sex, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, or sex.
If it's a general comment then I'd send them a faux naive "goodness, someone forgot to mention sex" (and any other protected characteristics they've omitted). If it's in relation to their legal duties then they absolutely cannot change the law to suit whichever lobby groups they've thrown public money at to misinform them.

@CheeryTreeBlossom we either work at the same place or there are uncanny similarities, though I imagine many organisations are going through these processes at the moment. I rather hope it is the same place as it feels very isolating to be considering standing against this.

Thank you both. They list them with an intro along the lines of 'we understand that certain groups have historically been more likely to be subject to discrimination such as.... then they list the protected characteristics with gender and gender Id instead of sex and gender reassignment... and we are committed to ensuring these groups do not suffer discrimination in the school.'

@ValancyRedfern

Thank you both. They list them with an intro along the lines of 'we understand that certain groups have historically been more likely to be subject to discrimination such as.... then they list the protected characteristics with gender and gender Id instead of sex and gender reassignment... and we are committed to ensuring these groups do not suffer discrimination in the school.'

If this is just a general mission statement, I would gently question why they mention some characteristics but not others. And then check whether they have any equality policies and what characteristics are included there.

As for the wording of the nine characteristics, it takes an Act of Parliament to change the wording of a law. So if this is their list, it is either inaccurate or incomplete. (It's perfectly legal to go beyond the Equality Act and list additional characteristics, such as class or gender.)

Public sector bodies must ensure that no group is discriminated against by upholding the Equality Act. That's the minimum standard and the characteristics relevant to the body must be quoted precisely as they are written in the law in any policies. (The protected characteristics of age, marriage and civil partnerships do not apply to schools, but the others do.)

Here is the EHRC Technical Guidance for Schools in England setting out their duties under the Equality Act. This applies to all schools, state and private.

Charlie you are so good at this.

I've seen that my organisation (which is in the public sector) misstates the protected characteristic of sex as Gender. Is this a breach of their public sector duty?

It's a breach of the law.

I might be tempted to say "can we maybe have a broader initiative to cover all bases, including race, sex, disability, etc?" and suggest training from ACAS specifically on the legal framework. So you don't attack GI directly, you just point out that their remit isn't wide enough

This is brilliant @DianasLasso - a cut-out-and-keep strategy.

Thank you. charleyparley, this is the wording from their equality statement and safeguarding statement.

charleyparley it is interesting to see that that EHRC guidance refers to a transsexual pupil and relates an example of a teacher mocking 'girls' clothing to gender reassignment. I thought gender reassignment only applied to adults? (Not that I think making fun of any child's clothing is acceptable, just querying the legal meaning of gender reassignment in under 18s).
.

@ValancyRedfern

charleyparley it is interesting to see that that EHRC guidance refers to a transsexual pupil and relates an example of a teacher mocking 'girls' clothing to gender reassignment. I thought gender reassignment only applied to adults? (Not that I think making fun of any child's clothing is acceptable, just querying the legal meaning of gender reassignment in under 18s). .

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic that applies to a person of any age.

So yes, it applies to children and if you check the EHRC Technical Guidance you can see they talk about newly adding Gender Reassignment as a protected characteristic that is relevant to schools.

Originally it applied only if one intend to transition, was in the process of transitioning or had transitioned. However, it is now applied to anyone who identifies as trans, regardless of whether they plan to transition or not.

What is restricted to adults only are Gender Recognition Certificates, that is the right to legally change sex. This means that certain circumstances where access to single-sex provisions can be decided on the basis of legal sex rather than biological sex simply do not apply to children under 18.

@ValancyRedfern

Thank you. charleyparley, this is the wording from their equality statement and safeguarding statement.

Then I would suggest a very polite note informing them that the information is incorrect with a request to correct it and referring them to either the EHRC Technical Guidance or to the Equality Act itself.

Assume a mistake made in good faith. It almost always is in schools.