Non-binary people are now protected from discrimination under the UK Equality Act

[stumbledin]

he Equality Act, which came into legislation in 2010, legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society on the basis of age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, race, religion, pregnancy and maternity and marriage and civil partnership.

Following years of uncertainty, a UK employment tribunal have now confirmed that non-binary and gender-fluid people are protected under the gender reassignment category.

This is from Gay Times gaytimes.co.uk/life/non-binary-people-are-now-protected-from-discrimination-under-the-uk-equality-act/

I think (99% sure) that this is the case referred to www.oldsquare.co.uk/news-and-media/news/et-finds-that-gender-reassignment-s.7-eqa-includes-gender-fluid-and-non-bin

No one should be harassed or discriminated against, so that's good.

This does not, however, mean that any group should be privileged. So, exemptions based on sex should still apply in exactly the same way as they would to anyone else of their sex.

And this should not be seen as giving non-binary people any right to harass or discriminate against people who won't submit to compelled speech.

I would say this is potentially a win for gender abolitionists.

• We can use "gender-fluid" to attack sexist dress codes. Why should men be disallowed skirts or women be compelled to wear printed blouses? They might be gender-fluid.
• We can use "gender-fluid" as a tool to resist pronouns in emails. How do you definitively declare something that could change all the time?
• We can still campaign for sex to remain a protected characteristic and for exemptions to be based on that.

What level of tribunal is this? Can/will JLR appeal?

we need a lawyer! can an employment tribunal extend protections? ie make law? isn't this why Maya is appealing because the employment tribunal was overstepping its mark in her case?

fatblackcatspaw

• There are levels of court and tribunal and usually a case is heard at the lowest level first and escalated up the levels through appeals.
• Courts and tribunals above a certain level can and do make case law by setting precedents for the interpretation of legislation and statutory instruments.
• The level at which Maya's tribunal sat can't set precedent.
• Maya is appealing because the next level up can overturn her judgement and IIRC can set precedent.

A particular organisation is celebrating this../

What does it even mean to discriminate against a person on the basis of them being non-binary?

I'm inclined to think as PP said that in theory might be a good thing - no one can require a non-binary person wear heels to work, can they? But I'm concerned that in practice it will be used to harass and bully people who forget to use the xie/xem pronouns on Wednesday afternoons or who don't want to share a toilet with Pips Bunce.

Some NB people seem to be bored white middle-class kids looking for an opportunity to feel oppressed,, handing them a stick like this to beat others with seems unlikely to work out well.

Well of course gender is a spectrum (actually that's a gross oversimplification, surely gender is multidimensional. ) . It's sex that is binary and that's still a separate protected characteristic.

Thank God, because the plight of the oppressed non-binary is one of the most pressing issues of our age.

But I'm concerned that in practice it will be used to harass and bully people who forget to use the xie/xem pronouns on Wednesday afternoons or who don't want to share a toilet with Pips Bunce

Toilets are segregated by sex, not gender. Bunce should be perfectly free to wear a suit one day and a frock the next, but he should use the loo appropriate to his sex every day.

No employment tribunal can set legal precedents. That being said, I would at the very least agree that this employee was unfairly treated - no employer should allow or tolerate the harassment of those in their employ by staff or customers. And it seems they did just that in not acting on the reported behaviours the claimant was subjected to.

However, on the notion of a male who claims to be female/non-binary female having the legal right to access opposite sex facilities, this ruling changes nothing - the claimant is both legally and biologically male and thus has no legal right to access female-only facilities provided under the EqA.

Tribunals are part of the lowest tier courts here and judgements frequently overturned. Judges are often not as familiar with human rights law as those at higher tiers and the conflict of rights between the claimant and the female staff at the claimants workplace is not something the judge seems to have even considered in deciding this case.

That article is making large claims for a decision of an employment tribunal. An employment tribunal makes findings and a decision in a particular case but is not authoritative on the law in the sense of being of wider application or binding on any other tribunal.
The tribunal is chaired by a legally qualified person of at least seven years' practice in the law, usually a solicitor, assisted by two lay members experienced in employment matters, one from the employee side of things, such as a trade unionist, and one from the employer's.
To get an authoritative statement of the law would require an appeal from the employment tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which is presided over by a High Court judge assisted by two experienced lay members and has the authority and status of the High Court. The EAT ruling could be appealed to the Court of Appeal and in turn to the Supreme Court.

Thanks lark, that's what I was trying to explain with half-remembered details of Maya's case.

1. This makes even more of a mess of a messy laws, therefore the government are going to have to do something.

1. why should we be having to do yet more crowdfunding to clear up these sodding messes. We are paying people to do their jobs and I for one, expect them to do what I pay them for.

Be competent you arses

Comments were 'in general' not about this particular case. I wouldn't be crowdfunding for rolls royce

@bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

Thanks lark, that's what I was trying to explain with half-remembered details of Maya's case.

You were right - and more succinct.

I should have mentioned that to appeal against an EAT ruling requires permission to appeal, either from the EAT itself or from the Court of Appeal.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-54180794?fbclid=IwAR2TWNzVdLdYlrqbcRsre9egu1pcVJL9prwCnf9TpkAkd9-zKUMbdocCiO8

BBC report that I was about to post but see it's already covered here.

I think that this is problematic. No problem with the harassment being unlawful but concerned about the impact and conflict with the regulations on single sex spaces in the workplace.

From the old square article in Ops post. During submissions there was reference to Hansard comments made during the Equality Bill parliamentary debates in 2009. It was noted that the Solicitor-General referred to a gender “spectrum” and that gender reassignment “concerns a personal journey and moving a gender identity away from birth sex”. The Tribunal held it was “clear… that gender is a spectrum” and that it is “beyond any doubt” that the Claimant fell within the definition of section 7, EqA 2010. The implication of this judgment is that other complex gender identities may also fall within the definition of gender reassignment under section 7, EqA 2010 where individuals propose to undergo a process of moving their gender identity away from their birth gender.

This is all over the place. It is far from clear what 'gender' is let alone that it is a spectrum.
I'm all for people's rights at work but that means all people. Vegans can't stop others eating meat and people who claim to be gender fluid can't stop women having single sex spaces.

Can I ask a question? I’m too scared to start a thread 😬.
If I don’t conform to masculine or feminine gender stereotypes does that mean I’m non-binary?

No, because you are doing an external thinking, it's not ( apparently ) about conforming to stereotypes

however, if you feel that to express your true internal self you are happiest using a mixture masculine and feminine behaviours, then yes.

Alternativky, you are human so are none binary

No, it’s means you’re a human being 😊

Who confirms 100% to all those stereotypes? Nobody.

Ahhh @midgebabe thanks for replying. I’m just trying to get my head around it. Surely gender is about stereotypical behaviours? (That we’ve been made to believe are male and female)

No no no,

Those gender typical behaviours are innate to each sex actually so if you have the wrong ones, you are in the wrong body.

Or

Your brain sex does not match your body sex so your brain knows something is wrong

Or

It's nothing to do with stereotypes, it's how you feel man...this line of reasoning is best followed after consuming a large amount of whisky . The next day you feel like a dog with bad breath. Making you gender fluid I guess

Btw, if I am expected to have a gender, then I would say I am none binary, but mostly I don't think it's anything to shout about

It's more I don't feel like a woman but I could never be accepted as a man

@midgebabe So if I don’t want to be gendered can I choose to be non binary?