Successfully challenged workplace on EA2010

[Boostinthefanjo]

I work in a large public sector institution and saw that their webpage on the Equality Act 2010 listed one of the protected characteristics as 'sex (or gender)'.

I emailed the Equality and Diversity team to ask why they had added the caveat of 'or gender', as this misrepresented the law and was confusing.

Happily got an email back stating that as the page outlines a legal definition, and the word 'gender' is not included in that piece of legislation, they will remove the reference to gender. Hooray!

(This was followed by a few fairly pointed paragraphs about how gender is a synonym for sex, also includes people's gender identity, can't tell someone's sex just from looking at them, trans women are women etc... I imagine my name is on a list somewhere now...)

Very small victories but a victory nonetheless. Sending my thanks to the posters of previous threads on here for the inspiration.

Weird that they (seem to) think conflating sex and gender is in any way helpful to trans folk.

Not really, given transactivist types do this constantly. Pretend they know sex and gender are very different,but then constantly bleat on using gender where they mean sex, and again. Same thing as what has been attempted to go on here IMO.

Muddle between sex/gender, then get people to use gender instead of sex, as gender IS just another word for sex of course, then suddenly, its gender everywhere and gender that matters more than sex even in law as its been changed by stealth though meaning different things.

I mean, of course its not going to benefit transsexual people in any way. But its the same as transactivist arguments really. So for those who think TRAs have transpeoples best will at heart..

NRatched
I know, they do it. One could argue that the conflation of sex and gender is transphobic, though. Imagine saying that one's gender is the same as one's sex! Outcry.
I certainly perceive the conflation of the two as transphobic in certain contexts (and therefore, to do so is a hate incident).

Nice work OP! This is exactly how we will reverse institutional capture, by getting them to correct their policies back to reflect the actual law. thank you for sticking up for women.

Nice one, boostinthefanjo

I am assuming that sodaperson won’t be back to explain why asking employers not to misrepresent the existing law is in any way discriminatory. The protected characteristic is sex, Soda, which the EHRC defines as “a man or a woman”. There is a separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That is the law as it stands. There is nothing remotely wrong with asking that the existing law is applied correctly.

Kiera- R4 now. 8:34

So I finally sent the email to challenge my workplace and was told that we have historically collected data by gender not sex, then some impenetrable waffle about exploring how we can encourage confidence in making disclosure around the protected characteristics meaningful and relevant, and where it is felt we can improve we strive to do so.

Hmm.

I would like to respectfully suggest that it would encourage confidence if they used the correct protected characteristics and that surely doing this should be a matter of urgency as otherwise they are not complying with their PSED.

However I'm scared of a backlash I know someone needs to stand up to this, but I need my job...

I know, they do it. One could argue that the conflation of sex and gender is transphobic, though. Imagine saying that one's gender is the same as one's sex! Outcry.
I certainly perceive the conflation of the two as transphobic in certain contexts (and therefore, to do so is a hate incident).

I agree 100%. It helps transpeople not one bloody bit. It does help the erosion of womens rights though, which is what TRAs are most concerned about (if we take the uproar about making the GRC cheaper, easier and better trans medical care, rather than the removal of womens rights as a benchmark..along with all else we know about TRA behaviour/wants)

@SodaPerson

Wow....the ironic part is that a lot of you on this thread are treating transgender women with the same amount of discrimnation/prejudice that women used to face from men.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who should know better either don't...or do know, but just don't care.

The problem is their perception of transgender women. Transgender women are not devils. Many are nurses, doctors, carers, charity workers, feminists (yes really) and generally nice people to know.

The level of discrimination and prejudice towards them on MN is astonishing.

This post is simply to highlight the erosion of women's rights if the female sex is recategorised to include people who are male. I am sure transmen and transwomen are for the most part lovely people just like most people are. However, if you cannot define sex how can you challenge sexism, sex discrimination, sexual violence and sexual oppression against women. We all accept that some people may have a different gender identity to their actual sex but conflating gender and sex is discriminatory against women .

Why do trans activists NEVER mention transmen?

The OP didn't mention transmen or transwomen, it was about the conflation of sex and gender, yet the 2 posters who've said we're being discriminatory or transphobic have only spoken about transwomen.

The only discriminatory and transphobic statements have come from Got and Soda. To speak the lingo, denying the very 'existence of trans(men)ppl'.

Strange isn't it. No misogyny at all.

@Kit19

well done you!!! they clearly didn't like it but you're completely right :)

its astonishing isnt it how people have been able to recognise people's biological sex for centuries but these days the simple act of a man putting on a dress apparenttly confuses us so much we cant tell the difference...

It matters not when proof of sex is on their (new) birth certificate.

The problem is their perception of transgender women. Transgender women are not devils. Many are nurses, doctors, carers, charity workers, feminists (yes really) and generally nice people to know.

None of that is relevant to why most women want sex-based rights and single sex spaces in some circumstances.

crunchermuncher

I am no longer employed, so I don't have to get involved in the politics at work, thankfully, but can appreciate how difficult it must be to put your head above the parapet. Especially when you get a brushing off email in reply.

I wonder why your organisation has historically collected data on gender rather than sex? How does that help with their E&D in terms of the balance of sexes?

Most men are nice people to know. However, not monitoring equality according to sex means we can't deal with institutionalised sexism. If we didn't monitor pay separately for men and women we'd have no idea that there was a pay gap.

These protections are set out in law and we are seekung to ensure that the law is upheld by institutions that should know better. Or are you arguing that everyone should be free to interpret the law as they see fit? That's not how the rule of law works...

Thanks TheShoesa cross post!

I might ask if that monitoring predates the EA2010 . But surely it should have been clarified at that point?

I'm an NHS employee and unfortunately the 2 terms seem to be used interchangeably!

It matters not when proof of sex is on their (new) birth certificate

No, I’m afraid that’s not what the Equality Act says, either.

@midclegs101

Why do trans activists NEVER mention transmen?

The OP didn't mention transmen or transwomen, it was about the conflation of sex and gender, yet the 2 posters who've said we're being discriminatory or transphobic have only spoken about transwomen.

The only discriminatory and transphobic statements have come from Got and Soda. To speak the lingo, denying the very 'existence of trans(men)ppl'.

Strange isn't it. No misogyny at all.

Well I probably wrongly assumed this thread was about TW. But "men are not women" seems to be the main theme on this forum anyway. So transmen. I just mentioned them ok. BTW I am not a trans activist. I am not even trans. And I am against any change to the GRA, against self ID because I think it would weaken its validity.

But what do you think about the topic of the thread gottalife, which is: why are companies acting as if sex and gender are interchangeable, when this a) is not the law, b) doesn’t benefit either women or the majority of trans people currently covered by the GRA and c) doesn’t even make sense when transitioning is felt to be necessary when your sex and your gender dont match. Who is it helping?

@SophocIestheFox

But what do you think about the topic of the thread gottalife, which is: why are companies acting as if sex and gender are interchangeable, when this a) is not the law, b) doesn’t benefit either women or the majority of trans people currently covered by the GRA and c) doesn’t even make sense when transitioning is felt to be necessary when your sex and your gender dont match. Who is it helping?

I don't know. Confusion in the HR department? But I am retired so I don't worry about it. But congrats to the OP anyway.

So transmen. I just mentioned them ok.

Bloody hell, the contempt shown, treating trans men as an afterthought and 'assuming' a thread specifically talking about sex and gender should exclude them. Some prejudices are showing very clearly.

Well done OP.

I work at an NHS-allied charity and challenged my workplace on the omission of sex in a staff survey. Senior HR contacted me and said they'd copied the survey from the NHS and will feed back.

At some point I'm going to challenge their new diversity policy which has been produced by Stonewall.

But "men are not women" seems to be the main theme on this forum anyway.

The "theme" of Mumsnet is parenting, and it's a predominantly female site, so you would expect the majority of posters, who are women who have had children or are trying to conceive, to know what a woman is. In other news, water is wet, I hear.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The problem is their perception of transgender women. Transgender women are not devils. Many are nurses, doctors, carers, charity workers, feminists (yes really) and generally nice people to know.

None of that is relevant to why most women want sex-based rights and single sex spaces in some circumstances.

Quite. All transwomen could be doctors or whatever, and it still would not change the fact that women are a real thing, and deserve/need rights based on their sex.

What how nice some transwomen might be has to do with someone challenging their workplace because said workplace was fudging SEX as a protected characteristic is..not clear?

I don't know. Confusion in the HR department? But I am retired so I don't worry about it. But congrats to the OP anyway.

I wish it was down to confusion. But that excuse doesn't wash while its happening all over, the majority (maybe all? was a large amount from memory) of councils changed sex to gender stealth too and had to be written to to reflect the actual law. Its just not feasible that this is just happening by mistake or because of confusion, exspecially when many TRA groups push the false law at the same time that these places are just randomly switching sex to gender. I do wonder who they think it will help, as its certainly not women, nor is it transpeople. So who benefits..

Glad you don't have to worry about it. Its not just employers though, but I assume you wouldn't care anyway if your council had switched to gender randomly instead of sex.
Luckily, I would think some women in your area do care so have informed the council if they are misrepresenting the law like many other places currely are after bad Illegal in some cases..) advice from certain pressure groups. And piece by piece, things are back how they should have been the whole time.