Does anyone fancy emailing the DWP?

[sashh]

As some of you know the DWP has removed 'sex' from its equality statement, I have received yet another reply telling me 'gender is more inclusive'

I have sent the following email - name redacted obviously but to [email protected] -this is my local team, the others are

OCU1 – Disability - PIP/DLA/CA/AA cases
o OCU2 – North East England
o OCU3 – West Midlands
o OCU4 – North Central
o OCU5 – North West England
o OCU6 – London & Essex
o OCU7 – North & East Midlands
o OCU8 - Wales
o OCU9 – South East England
o OCU10 – South West England
o OCU11 – Scotland
o OCU12 – Retirement Services

Dear X, thank you for your letter dated 25 January 2021, your ref redacted

I am rather puzzled by your reply. You state that 'gender' is to be 'as inclusive as possible'. Every single human being in the world has a sex (male, female or intersex) but not everyone has a gender. I do not have a gender and an increasing number of people are rejecting this social construct due to 'gender stereotypes' which are damaging for everyone.

So how does removing a term, identified in law, from your equality statement and substituting one that is offensive and damaging correspond with 'inclusivity'.

On a further note, the Equality Act is about being 'fair' not 'inclusive', this is for many reasons, eg some people are exempt from the act due to clashes between the rights of groups with 'protected characteristics' eg to learn to drive a car you must be at least 17 years old (or 16 in some circumstances), you must also be able to see.

You are still discriminating against me because I have a sex.

I look forward to your explanation.

[sashh]

Thank you everyone.

[NeverTrustaRabbit]

@sashh

Link to my original post, it has a photo of the statement, this statement is on correspondence from the DWP.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3942351-The-DWP-have-fallen#prettyPhoto

Why do you think this? Bit saying you're wrong l, just seeking to understand more.

Due to correspondence with the DWP where they keep insisting gender is 'more inclusive'

Pic of the latest letter.

Thank you @sashh

The first letter you rec'd (June 2020) appears to be one of the computer generated "standard paragraph" letters, ie the computer system pulls together a notification based on the info input and decision reached. What you need to be asking here is when did this statement change to remove sex, what was the quality control mechanism that ensured the wording reflected the legal status of the 2010 Act and did lawyers or a senior policy official in diversity and equality sign off the wording. You could also ask if the computer systems are set up to accept a sex marker or a gender marker. If only sex, why is this?

Sorry to say that as it stands, you will receive a reply basically saying we've given you the answer and we will not reply again on this issue.

[stumbledin]

I was wondering whether it would be more effective to contact the Government Department / Minister responsible.

The DWP is part of the Government, providing services on behalf of the Government and as such should be acting within the law, ie the EA not some made up set of rules, whether their own or Stonewall's or anyone elses.

Minister responsible:
Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Department executive:
Peter Schofield, Permanent Secretary

Website
www.gov.uk/dwp

[stumbledin]

I see the web page includes an option for and FOI!!

[NiceGerbil]

So we hear that there is concern about women being affected more than men with covid/ Brexit and economy etc

But the dwp work on gender (invisble) rather than sex(immutable).

Areseholes.

[sashh]

I was wondering whether it would be more effective to contact the Government Department / Minister responsible.

I tried that it was bounced back to the DWP.

So we hear that there is concern about women being affected more than men with covid/ Brexit and economy etc

And I expect the DWP has more female claimants than male.

Areseholes

Well yes, but I'm not sure that will get them to take this seriously.

[stumbledin]

Sorry to hear that contacting the Minister just bounced back to DWP. Does that mean contacting via constituency would also be returned?

But on the other hand doesn't surprise me. Some years ago when I was having to sign on for various reasons and was having problems (and this was thanks to the Labour Government bringing in a private contractor for HB etc..) I made a complaint to the Minister / Deptartment as complaints to local office weren't dealt with. And even though I explained that effectively the complaint was about the Manager I got a letter saying my complaint had been referred to the Manager of my local office!!!

[Leafstamp]

I have had a reply to the email that I sent to my local DWP team. It mirrors the OP's responses, i.e that 'gender' is more inclusive.

However, they have said that work is being done to look at revising their wording.

I've replied politely asking why they think it's acceptable to change the wording of legislation and when the outcome of their work looking at revising the wording is expected. If anyone wants more detail, please PM me - the reply includes a similarly unsatisfactory explanation for why pregnancy and maternity were omitted.

While I'm here, if anyone missed this thread the first time, here's some easy armchair activism on a similar theme:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4177292-Call-to-Action-please

[stumbledin]

Just wanted to say good on you for not letting them off the hook!

I think the point about the the law actually is, is vital.

The idea that people can just bring their belief sets into the work place and just start changing what should or shouldn't be done based on that rather than the actual basis that they should be working. ie as a government department that should be working to the laws of that government!

[sashh]

@Leafstamp Thank you for doing this, at least they are now looking at the wording.