"Gender" rather than "gender reassignment" protected characteristic - does it matter?

[LoftyLisa]

My employer (woke as fuck) keeps listing gender, rather than gender reassignment, as a protected characteristic. They do also list sex, and all the others in the Equalities Act (2010) accurately.
Is this worth pointing out? It's inaccurate, which is annoying, but what are the real implications? Sorry to be dense. Can anyone spell it out for me so I can decide whether to say anything? Many thanks.

Also, it takes an Act of Parliament to alter the wording of an existing Act of Parliament. No company can lawfully decide to do just that. Not even if they believe they can make things more inclusive by doing it. (My council did this, and I phoned the regulator tasked with the enforcement of the Equality Act, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and that's what they told me. First thing the court looks at. Equal pay dispute: Haven't got sex? Employer loses. Forced retirement at 60: Haven't got age? Employer loses etc.

Legally speaking, where would a nationwide, taypayer-funded, recruitment/selection system stand, if the process monitored gender but not sex, gender reassignment or maternity? If someone brought a lawsuit about the recruitment process (for example, saying that they were discriminated against on the basis of sex or maternity leave), would this be a problem?

Or if a lawsuit was brought saying, for example, that there was systemic transphobia? This would be easily assessed if candidates' gender reassignment status had been monitored, but not if the only gender or sex related question was "What is your gender?" (as I've realised is the case in the example within the profession I'm in).

If its a public body it has to demonstrate adherence to Public Sector Equality Duty (www.citizensadvice.org.uk/cymraeg/Y-Gyfraith-a-Llysoedd/discrimination/public-sector-equality-duty/what-s-the-public-sector-equality-duty/) on the basis of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. That includes monitoring PCs to ensure that they are responding appropriately to the requirements of different groups. If they don't collect this data - as you point out - they can't know whether they are doing so.

If it's not a public body they could still face a discrimination case if someone with a PC felt that they were being treated less favourably than their non-PC equivalent. Charlie nails it.