Interpreting the EA2010

[Terranean]

Hi, I mostly read here and find much of what is discussed very interesting and articulated. I have seen this on a union website on Gender identity and the interpretation of Gender Reassignment as a PC: "Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic within the Equality Act, so it's important that employers are taking action to ensure gender identity equality within their institutions. An employment tribunal in 2020 found that non-binary gender is covered by the protected characteristic gender reassignment.

While the 2010 Act refers to gender reassignment, it is more common now to use the more inclusive term gender identity as it reflects:

that the Equality Act covers a person from the moment they identify their gender as other than the one that matches their birth sex; and
that engagement with related medical processes - eg, gender reassignment surgery - is an individual choice, not a pre-requisite for being covered by the Act."

Is this correct? I know Ann Sinnot is seeking clarification, but I am unsure if an employment tribunal decision can impact on a parliamentary Act. Could that be the Maya's Forstater case? It is really awful to see how little thought is given to women's rights by all this institutions and organisations that shout so loud about equality. Any insights on how to interpret that text would be appreciated.

@jellyfrizz

It's very common to find people and organisations conflating gender identity (what the hell is that?) with gender reassignment — but those who do so are wrong.

How does it matter as long as neither are conflated with sex?

I agree jellyfrizz. And same for the non binary case, it's an irrelevance. The sex exemptions apply to all identities and none.

The twin goals of the 2016 Trans Enquiry participants were to both eliminate the sex exemptions and replace reassignment with identity. Interpretation of reassignment as identity has no bearing on sex exemptions, which is why there was the imperative was to remove them. The guidelines of course implied that exemptions where impossible to use and so the important challenges are to that misinformation.

No identity changes sex for all purposes. The unions are of course propagators of lies and bullying about exemptions.

Because then "gender identity" becomes a protected characteristic and gets a status in Equality legislation on a par with the protected characteristic of "sex".

As long as it was completely separate from sex I don’t see how it matters? Wouldn’t it help males in male spaces to be as feminine as they like and have protection for that?

I think the problem is that the pc of gender reassignment was put in place for a very specific group of people at a certain time (transsexuals who had surgery and at the time may well have been at risk if outed) but ‘gender reassignment’ covers anyone even thinking of transitioning and for some this might be as little as putting pronouns on Twitter.

I think the fight has to be to separate gender identity and sex completely. Allow people to claim whatever gender identity they like but make it clear that legally, and otherwise, sex is something different.

As long as it was completely separate from sex I don’t see how it matters?

There's a big difference between something that would be clearly distinguishable once it reaches the High Court level and an environment of misinformation and institutional capture in which small entities would roll over out of fear and allow the protected characteristic of "gender identity" to trump that of "sex" because they've either been brainwashed by misinformation about the law or hope it will get them far less of a backlash.

As I see it, the meaning of "gender reassignment" changing so that it includes "gender identity" gets us more of the mischief we've had so far but on steroids.

nauticant

I (and I think many others) am very confused about the Ms R Taylor case, because in this BBC article they refer to the person as "gender fluid" or "non binary" but use the pronoun "she".
If someone is gender fluid then how would anyone know what pronouns to use?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-54180794

If you do a Google image search you will end up more confused. Especially since a key part of this was about Taylor wearing "women's clothes". I think arguing this before the tribunal on the basis of "non-binary" was a tactical move.

As I see it, the meaning of "gender reassignment" changing so that it includes "gender identity" gets us more of the mischief we've had so far but on steroids.

Yes, I see your point but I think we're already past the point of there being any difference between the two:

This is from the Equality Act:

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

So you can be covered by just thinking about using different pronouns (if you accept pronouns as an attribute of sex).

I think that people should be able to present as they like (within decency) without discrimination so I wouldn't be against people being protected under gender identity. I don't believe women should have certain presentation requirements at work which are different from men for example.

What I do not agree with is that gender identity equates to sex.

I think the best solution is to recognise both sex AND gender identity. You can't change sex but you can do what you like with gender identity - it shouldn't allow you access to spaces for the opposite sex (because it's not sex).

What's happened is that the flaws in that part of the EA were always there but when people realised they could exploit them they didn't in their wildest dreams expect the degree to which they'd be pushing at an open door, combined with any claim they made would meet very little challenge, and any challengers who did appear would risk facing harsh punishment.

@nauticant

If everyone has a 'gender identity' then everyone has 'gender reassignment'

If they were being logical then yes but logic has long been abandoned in this debate. What we're supposed to believe is that 99+% of the people in the country have complete alignment between their "gender identity" and their sex. It's obviously rubbish but if you try to stand up against this shit then you end up being beaten down or facing a multi-year fight through the courts like Maya Forstater.

Well, I do try to work through some kind of logic here! Cool, so we're either gender-free, and therefore fall under the trans umbrella, or we have a gender identity and therefore fall under the 'gender reassignment' PC.

I agree that everyone should be protected from being discriminated against due to gender presentation, but surely this should more properly be covered under sex discrimination?

Eg a male who wants to wear a skirt to work should be allowed otherwise he's being discriminated against because his sex isn't allowed to do that.

Making it a totally separate category weakens our position, I think. Because if male&trans gets to wear a skirt but male&nottrans doesn't, there's no sex discrimination, is there?

And if female&trans air stewards don't have to wear makeup and heels, but female&nottrans do - again, where's the sex discrimination?

Also, part me of thinks MF should have played them at their own game, and claimed she was discriminated against for having a terven gender identity.

The bullying was for dressing as the opposite sex so there was nothing ground breaking at all.

Exactly. Surely this person would have had PC gender reassignment as an MTF trans person in any case? Why focus on "gender fluidity"?

This is an excellent point.

It really is.

I think arguing this before the tribunal on the basis of "non-binary" was a tactical move.

Absolutely.

Why focus on "gender fluidity"?

My guesses:

• They didn't want the court to be see the person in front of it as a cross-dressing trans person.
• No one knows what "gender fluidity" and "non-binary" mean so the opportunities for bamboozlement of the court were much better.
• The case was a likely victory in any case and so the opportunity was taken to have it decided on a basis, non-binary, that would make it serve much better as a lever in the future, for litigation, lobbying, applying pressure to other entities and institutions, etc.

The case was a likely victory in any case and so the opportunity was taken to have it decided on a basis, non-binary, that would make it serve much better as a lever in the future, for litigation, lobbying, applying pressure to other entities and institutions, etc.

YY.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The case was a likely victory in any case and so the opportunity was taken to have it decided on a basis, non-binary, that would make it serve much better as a lever in the future, for litigation, lobbying, applying pressure to other entities and institutions, etc.

YY.

The opportunity taken was for MiladyRenata to crow about some sort of half arsed legal precedent.

MiladyRenata started a thread here for the very purpose of enjoyment of apparently pissing on our legs. In a car manufacturing environment, that well known sector of Women's Liberation.

A pyyric victory if ever i saw one.

Pyyhric. Why doesn't spell check know this?

Pyrrhic I think

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Pyrrhic I think

Thanks

Never could roll my rrrs

Many thanks to all of you. I've been away most of the day and I was pleased to get so much info. You guessed the source right. And thanks for clarifying the case they refer to and the standing of such judgements to be applied as a general point for all to follow.

Academia is full of lacking accuracy when citing, etc. Not sure if there is any point in challenging and maybe not this week coinciding with one of the various celebratory weeks or months. It would just be a foob reply telling me to be kind and stay in line.

Very good points, though, about pairing GR with GI and conflating intersex. I wonder how the other fads disappeared and wish this will go same way soon.