Wished for …New guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Government Equalities Office

[FindTheTruth]

What's your wished for guidance by the EHRC and GEO?

[My wished for new guidance on GOV.UK:

We are aware that topics involving gender and biological sex can be complex and sensitive matters to navigate. You should respect a person’s chosen gender identity, pronouns and support their wellbeing and rights. However, you should not suggest that protecting the sex class category is synonymous with harm to people who identify as transgender and non-binary.

You should be mindful of all the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010; Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Race, Religion or belief, Sex or Sexual orientation. You should not condone bullying, removal of, ostracising or other forms of social or emotional harm toward any protected group under the Equality act. You should not remove a protected class from your diversity and inclusion statements. Nor should you suggest that the existence of one group harms another.

Materials which suggest that gender should replace SEX, promote the removal of SEX as a protected class, deny SEX based oppression, suggest that same SEX attraction doesn’t exist or promote the suppression of SEX based rights, should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material.]

if only....

To the brilliant FWRs on here, what's your wished for guidance by the EHRC and GEO? I don't think my version would cut it (probably not). Some might say it's impossible

Clarity is needed to stop putting the debate onto a pro-trans/anti-trans footing. like the 'pro trans letter' this week to counter the 'Support JKR letter', of which author Kiran MillwoodHargrave said it's clear there is alignment with transphobia because Graham Linehan, Lionel Shriver signed it and because where was the support for the trans community Rowling put in harm's way with her views?

I've just dug again for Ann Sinnott, Founder and Director of Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA,) who is challenging the EHRC and GEO on their unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act. Her case is so important. Ann Sinnott, summarises incorrect guidance by the EHRC and GEO and how you can help.

In addition to Ann's case, I'd like to see guidance not to bully and gaslight... to not suggest that protecting the sex class category is synonymous with harm to people who identify as transgender and non-binary. or that the existence of one group harms another.

Whilst I agree with most of what you have written i can't agree with the part about using preferred pronouns as it implies that forced speech is acceptable

Agree 100% about forced use of pronouns @Cabinfever10.❤️ In another version of this I had 'respect a persons declared pronouns but don't force everyone to state pronouns'... but got tied in knots on how to best put it..... some sort of statement on the protected characteristics and forced speech

The pronoun usage is very problematic for both sides. On the one hand it is "kind " to do so however for those of us who are gc its a lie.
Perhaps something along the lines of it is acceptable to use a person's preferred pronouns this cannot be forced on staff/users nor should they be discriminated against for refusing to do so

How about something like,

You should respect a person’s chosen gender identity and support their wellbeing and rights. Using their preferred pronouns is a matter of courtesy but should not be compelled if it conflicts with your beliefs

(I've probably ballsed up the italics on that)

@ErrolTheDragon thats good though it implies that gender identity is a protected characteristic and comes with rights when it isn't and doesn't.
Sorry to be pedantic but considering the way stonewall et al twist things it needs to be iron clad

@Cabinfever10

The pronoun usage is very problematic for both sides. On the one hand it is "kind " to do so however for those of us who are gc its a lie. Perhaps something along the lines of it is acceptable to use a person's preferred pronouns this cannot be forced on staff/users nor should they be discriminated against for refusing to do so

As it stands the EHRC guidance sees deliberate and continual use of "wrong" pronouns as harassment. By making someone feel humiliated, offended or degraded. The EHRC are not going to be held responsible for allowing harassment. Sorry.

deliberate and continual use of "wrong" pronouns as harassment.

Deliberate and continual are purposefully being conflated by them.

Deliberate - can be vindictive and used maliciously but it’s also a statement of fact- which in many circumstances - as discussed tirelessly on this board- is often highly important to express for the rights, opportunities and safety of women.

If a TW is a bus driver - their gender identity is utterly irrelevant. Calling a bus driver TW by their sexed- base pronouns is unnecessary. I would aim to avoid pronouns altogether. However if the TW is in a women’s sports team, a criminal going to prison, a police officer about to do an intimate search on a woman - it is highly relevant and correct pronouns should be stated.

Continuous - a big ask for the population to unlearn the language learnt since birth and to ignore thee evidence of their own eyes from which speech naturally flows. Big Brother would have a field day.

Policing language is not good for anyone, including transpeople.

I think where pronouns are being used with deliberate malice, to cause distress, then that's harassment and should rightly be defined as such.

Accident is not. Nor is eg an autistic person, who isn't able to lie and would see this as such.

Avoiding use of pronouns so as not to accept a belief system which someone regards as inherently harmful is not harassment.

Forcing someone to use opposite sex pronouns to their own detriment, where correctly sexed ones matter (the list below is excellent) is in itself arguably harassment.

As with so much of this, we need to balance rights and harms. Not simply assume that male women matter, and female women do not.

ThinEndOfTheWedge has it.

I won't call a male sex offender a woman. It's abusive of women to expect them to do so, given societal context. There is no, 'her penis' about male patterned sexual violence.

You should not condone bullying, removal of, ostracising or other forms of social or emotional harm toward any protected group under the Equality act. You should not remove a protected class from your diversity and inclusion statements. Nor should you suggest that the existence of one group harms another.

This goes beyond anti discrimination legislation and into 'hate incident' territory, where no crime has been committed but you can be accused of wrong think.
I don't think it is workable because my new normal is to ask 'how can this be twisted, and turned back against the group it was intended to protect'.
I've seen women accused of bullying and ostracising, because they haven't wanted to walk into a bathroom with a man in it. Or they haven't joined in a conversation started by a man in a woman's bathroom, or they have stopped a private conversation when a man joins the group.

I would have a problem with the first paragraph. Even the first sentence! Words are important and so too the order of words and the qualification of words. The second sentence is even more problematic - in fact all of it. I would not do or want to be enjoined to do any of that: 'You should respect a person’s chosen gender identity, pronouns and support their wellbeing and rights.' The concept of respecting, choosing and the term following it, never mind pronouns, have many implications and consequences and notional rights are another obscure and treacherous minefield as is any imposed obligation to support some category's wellbeing. Not the law's business or mine.

No-one can compel the use of "pronouns" on anyone. An employer may demand they be used as part of an employer's Code of Conduct for Staff but outside of that everyone is free to speak as they wish.

It is arguable that any employer demanding compelled use of "pronouns" is creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for other employees. To do such is a definition of harassment.

You should respect a person’s chosen gender identity, pronouns

Unacceptable.

What does 'respect' mean here? How is it demonstrated?

I do not believe that Jesus died for our sins. Because I am not a Catholic. Yet I am able to behave with mutual respect to practicing Catholics. I am not expected to demonstrate that respect by pretending to agreeing with their beliefs. Why should I be expected to pretend to agree with trans beliefs?

I am not obliged to say "Peace be upon him" every time I mention the prophet Mohammed, because I do not believe in the Muslim faith. So why should I be expected to refer to a male person by female pronouns, or a female person by male pronouns?

Try instead:

People should not be discriminated against for performing stereotypes normally associated with the opposite sex.

JellySlice’s final paragraph nails it! Perfect.

The Equality & Human Rights Commission [EHRC] is an arm of the state.

EHRC cannot issue guidance that compels the use of "pronouns" since this would be contrary to the human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of belief.