Gender instead of sex in work diversity training

[FuriousFemale]

I did the online diversity and inclusion training at work recently. It lists characteristics that people may experience discrimination against. It doesn't specifically mention the equality act but the list is identical to the characteristics in the act accept gender is used instead of sex.

I want to raise this but I'm not sure how to do this safely. There should be absolutely nothing controversial about what I want to say but I've seen enough recently to know speaking up can be risky.

Has anyone challenged something like this before? How did you go about it and what was the reaction like?

If the law says the word 'sex' then the legal word is 'sex' not 'gender'. You can't just change the law.

Could you tell the DWP? I've been corresponding with them for over 6 months, they just say, "It's more inclusive"

@Erkrie

Someone linked a court case in the chat that apparently showed the court had conceded that a non-binary person was covered by the Act

What was the court case, can you remember?

Unfortunately not, the session was back in Feb and the chat's now fallen off. I was also standing my ground with the sex versus gender thing in what felt quite a hostile space, and I was shaking. Wish I'd paid more attention and read the thing properly

@sashh

If the law says the word 'sex' then the legal word is 'sex' not 'gender'. You can't just change the law.

Could you tell the DWP? I've been corresponding with them for over 6 months, they just say, "It's more inclusive"

They are fucknuggets then.

But then we know the DWP has form for acting unlawfully.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

course they are - gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic

"Non binary" people were not specifically covered by "gender reassignment", a point the government acknowledged in 2016, and I believe the court's interpretation was based on the person's MTF trans identity and the treatment received due to that, and the spin put on it by activists is wrong.

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks. Don't want to get this wrong, as we know people jump on you for even a mild spelling mistake if they think you're transphobic.

I don't remember it being JLR as I am a huge Land Rover fan so I think I would have noticed, but I was under stress bringing it up so I may well be wrong

It's a new job for me and it's Civil Service...

R0wantrees and Ereshkigalangcleg seem to have potentially identified the case PopperUppleton. Always useful to be prepared for the future. I'm sorry the people in the training session made the environment hostile for you. Arseholes.

RedToothBrush

Thanks for your insight. The council folded quite quickly when I mentioned the Equality Act but their first reaction was appallingly ill-informed. Sometimes I think that part of the problem is just a general incompetence as officials sheepishly follow the loudest voices around without doing their own research. And frequently fail to believe women.

So what is your actual issue with the wording? Your company are just pointing out groups of people who are may be discriminated against. This is your company's policy. It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

@WestendVBroadway

So what is your actual issue with the wording? Your company are just pointing out groups of people who are may be discriminated against. This is your company's policy. It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

Well if sex isn’t there then you can’t have sex discrimination. One way to wipe out maternity discrimination, the sex pay gap etc, I suppose.

It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

The legal protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 is sex, "gender" does not map to that. So yes it is. Legal meanings are usually precise, so it's necessary to keep to the exact wording so as not to break the law.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

The legal protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 is sex, "gender" does not map to that. So yes it is. Legal meanings are usually precise, so it's necessary to keep to the exact wording so as not to break the law.

This.

Laws tend to start out by using legal definitions of words.

Sex has a different meaning to gender therefore they are not interchangeable.

As i point out above if you substitute the word sex with gender you run the risk of committing the crime of indirect discrimination.

It is not a minor nor trival issue to change the word.

You might want to look at the submission made to the court today by EHRC in the case of Maya Forstater, for legal clarity.

This is your company's policy. It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

If sex is replaced with gender then it is in actual fact rewriting the equality act.

@JackieLavertysWeirdVoice

You might want to look at the submission made to the court today by EHRC in the case of Maya Forstater, for legal clarity.

Have you got a link to that Jackie?

Yes, from the Maya Forstater thread. Fairly short - well worth a read.

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

Should give some helpful ideas and pointers, hopefully.

Hopefully a clickable link

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

EHRC also agreed with all Maya Forstater's QC's points of law so their skeleton argument is useful:

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

@WrongKindOfFace. Well if sex isn’t there then you can’t have sex discrimination. One way to wipe out maternity discrimination, the sex pay gap etc, I suppose.
Yes , I see your point. However the protected characteristic of 'Pregnancy and Maternity ' would still stand.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It is not them re-writing the Equality Act.

The legal protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 is sex, "gender" does not map to that. So yes it is. Legal meanings are usually precise, so it's necessary to keep to the exact wording so as not to break the law.

I think you misunderstand me. What I meant was that the OP's company are not re-writing the Equality Act, because however they word their own individual policy the Equality Act is still the law. So the 9 protected characteristics remain protected, because as you say the actual law still stands.

Out of interest, are all these organisations that people are working in on this thread public sector?

I work in the private sector, admittedly less than 250 employees, and this topic never crops up.

Public sector equality duty affects public sector only, policies and what-not.

nope I'm private sector.

Thank you all. I've not had much time today but will read through all the info.

I know the equality act still stands but it seems really wrong to misrepresent it in that way. It doesn't fill me with confidence that sex discrimination would be taken seriously.

Link to all the skeleton (basic outline) arguments ongoing in Maya Forstater's case

hiyamaya.net/employment-appeal/

They really are worth reading.

I would say that the failure to include one of the PC might create a misleading impression that the company wasn’t following the EA.

I also think it may be indirect sex discrimination if they fail to refer to sex as women are more likely to suffer discrimination due to their sex.

A very important point to press is that the EHRC submitted to court just yesterday that sex is immutable and binary, in biology and law.

I've just read the ehrc submission, thank you for the link - strong stuff!