Gender reassignment vs gender identity

[Uell]

Would any of you wise women be able to spell out in the difference in simple terms please.

I feel in the times ahead it's going to be useful to be able to give examples of the difference.

I think I know but I'm not really able to articulate it clearly.

Well, according to Stonewall's boss (from the recent BBC article)...

Stonewall's been criticised for using the term "gender identity" when referring to the Equality Act's protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

But Ms Kelley described that as "the difference between natural language and statutory language".

But we know this is obfuscatory bullshit, don't we.

"gender identity" is whatever a person who claims to have one says it is, isn't it? The list of different possible gender identities, some of which have special, exotic pronouns, is only limited by the number of people who want to claim one. It could include otherkin, furries, adult babies...

I think "gender reassignment" is more commonly associated with the legal fiction of sex change, ie male to female or female to male.

Gender reassignment and transexual are terms used in the Equality Act 2010 and they have very specific meanings.

Gender reassignment
(1)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.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Gender identity is what Stonewall wants it to be - it has no definitions, people are what they say they are at any given moment.

Oh good point going directly to the legislation. I hadn't realised transsexual was a legal term, I was under the impression it was thought of as an offensive term.

The (deliberate?) muddle over language makes this quite difficult to navigate.

Quoting LangClegsInSpace because I can't bring up a link to the post:

If the [protected characteristic] was renamed 'gender identity' [instead of gender reassignment] this would massively change how it works.

Some of the protected characteristics apply to all of us:

Age
Race
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Religion or belief (because lack of belief is also protected)

Some PCs [protected characteristics] only apply to some of us:

Disability
Gender Reassignment
Marriage or Civil Partnership
Pregnancy and Maternity

The people who want gender reassignment to be changed to gender identity are generally of the belief that we all have a gender identity. So who would be protected - people with a 'trans' identity and also those with a 'cis' identity? Would that be their intention, to give equal protection to 'cis' people?

And where would that leave those of us who don't have a 'gender identity'? Would we be the only group who were not protected under this shiny new protected characteristic?

Or would they do a swift 180 and start claiming that only trans people have a 'gender identity' after all? That would be an interesting move.

It's almost worth it just to see them have to come up with a legally coherent definition of 'gender identity'.

by changing physiological or other attributes of sex

What does it mean by other (ie non-physiological) attributes of sex? Is it wearing different clothes, using a different name etc?

And where would that leave those of us who don't have a 'gender identity'? Would we be the only group who were not protected under this shiny new protected characteristic?

For religious beliefs, a lack of belief is protected too, so you would surely have something similar.

Gender assignment basically equals the process of medical intervention and gender expression ("other attributes of sex" - lord knows what parliament actually meant by this, but probably the cultural stereotypes associated with each sex).

Gender identity is an internal feeling that may be the motivation for undergoing gender assignment, but is not a term that is interchangeable with gender reassignment.

So reassignment is something you do, identity is something you are.

For transexuals, it was a formalised process involving a medical certificate, 'living as a woman' for 2 years, changing names - stating that there was no intention to change back etc.

There are crossovers with GRA 2004 (Gender Recognition Act) and the legal fiction that was intended to cover about 5000 people who transitioned or intended to transition. Much of what the GRA 2004 was providing for is now voided by other legal changes such as the right to same sex marriage, pensions equality etc.

Gender identity is how you personally identify - male / female and anywhere between the two.

Reassignment to me anyway means changing sex

Worth noting that Kelley is being either ignorant or disingenuous talking about gender reassignment vs gender identity - the latter is frequently used instead of the protected characteristic of sex. In job adverts my employer promises not to discriminate on the basis of a grab-bag of characteristics, including gender identity but NOT sex 🙄

I think that the point is this:

The claim that "gender identity" is protected strongly implies to the ignorant that people have a legal right to have others recognise their gender identity, and treat them as the sex that they "identity" as.

"Gender reassigment" sounds much more like what it is - that you have a right not be discriminated against for being trans, relative to a non-trans person of the same sex.

So essentially this means that non-binary isn't a protected characteristic in itself.

The law really needs to be clarified in legislation not just by case law.

When there was a clear delineation of transexual and transvestite the debate was easy to navigate.
By conflating sex and gender it has polarised people and reinforced the gender stereotypes they want us to move away from.
Fucking ridiculous.

@AnotherLass

I think that the point is this:

The claim that "gender identity" is protected strongly implies to the ignorant that people have a legal right to have others recognise their gender identity, and treat them as the sex that they "identity" as.

"Gender reassigment" sounds much more like what it is - that you have a right not be discriminated against for being trans, relative to a non-trans person of the same sex.

Ok - thanks.

But would it be a transman has the right not to be discriminated compared to a woman?

A transman's right not to be discriminated against compared to a man would come under sex protections?

Or am I still in a muddle?

(I hope I'm not coming across as goady, I genuinely find this a difficult area to grasp)

I’m not sure this is the right question? People shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their religion/disability/and so on, and the precise rights are defined in the law.
People don’t have magical entitlements because of the protected characteristics though.

I don’t have to give someone my purse because they are a catholic, or my car because they have a hearing impairment.
Planning gender reassignment doesn’t give a male the right to perform a cervical exam.

Gender critical does more that recognise the importance of sex, it also looks to dismantle gender stereotypes because they are harmful - particularly to women. It is these very harmful gender stereotypes on which gender ideology hangs. They need them and reinforce them. Without them what are you identifying with?

(I hope I'm not coming across as goady, I genuinely find this a difficult area to grasp)

You don't appear to have taken much time to read the legislation nor cross-reference it with other intersecting legislation before forming additional fairly nuanced questions.

Perhaps it would be helpful to take some time to absorb with the relevant legislation says (with its appropriate definitions)? And then questions from there - perhaps having read Stonewall's re-launched vision to understand what they're proposing on related matters?

Thanks EmbarrassingAdmissions, I was just coming to post that

@GrownUpBeans

And where would that leave those of us who don't have a 'gender identity'? Would we be the only group who were not protected under this shiny new protected characteristic?

For religious beliefs, a lack of belief is protected too, so you would surely have something similar.

It could be written that way but it wouldn't be automatic.

I very much doubt the intention would be to give equal protection to 'cis' people, let alone those of us who just don't buy into any of it.

Gender reassignment is a process - something ee do. It is tangible. It is illegal to treat us less favourably as a result. So - for example - I could not be denied service in a shop because I was wearing a skirt, or be dismissed from my job because I had a series of medical appointments.

I do not have a gender identity, so I cannot see how thay could protect me.

Agree with others that the law is very unclear and should be updated.

Gender assignment basically equals the process of medical intervention and gender expression

But the legislation uses 'or' not 'and'. So it seems that gender expression alone counts as reassignment. And most people with a gender identity will express it, so will be protected in the expression of their gender identity. So I see Stonewall's argument here. In any case, I think that, in general, people shouldn't be discriminated against for their gender identity. And hopefully, fingers crossed for the Maya Forstater case, those who don't have a gender identity will be protected under 'beliefs'.

It is Stonewall's refusal to recognise that sex based rights also exist, and that in some situations there is a clash, that I find more troubling.

A law that can only be sustained through the deliberate avoidance of proper definitions is an unjust law.

If, by the simple act of fairly and accurately defining key terms, the law would collapse, then the law SHOULD COLLAPSE. If the only thing holding a law together is avoidance, obfuscation and circular fallacies, the law isn't fit to stand.

"Physiological and other attributes of sex" is as demonstrably stupid as "physiological and other attributes of a pancreas".
A pancreas is physiological.
Sex is physiological.
There is no "other" attribute of sex, that is not physiological.
Prettiness? Fragrance? Musicality? Clothing? Language? Names? None are attributes of sex.

A physiological state is a physiological state, and just as any and all conceivable alterations to the physiological organ 'pancreas' do not change the pancreas into a kneecap, nor take it one iota closer in definition to a kneecap, similarly neither do any and all conceivable alterations to the attributes of 'sex' change it in any way. It's impossible to change sex.

A law that 'recognises' a pancreas as a kneecap because of 'physiological or other' changes is no less preposterous than a law which recognises the male sex as female because of 'physiological or other' changes.

Almost two decades of forcibly trying to legislate the physiological states of male and female into a fictional state of 'psyche' has failed, utterly.

It's been a miserable experience for all of us still living in the physiological reality of our female sex to endure this failed experiment.

So to answer your question, OP, 'gender identity' is the lie that states that we all have a gendered psyche, and it is NOT enshrined in law.
And 'gender reassignment' is the legal fiction - which is a delightful euphemism for 'big fat lie' - is the lie that there are "physiological and other" attributes of sex that can be changed in any meaningful way. And that IS enshrined in law.

For now.

Yes, the Equality Act means that a transman has the right not to be treated less favourably than a woman. So, for example, you can't refuse then a job or house rental, or bully them, BECAUSE they're trans. I think it does include non-binary since that auto company bullying case (can't remember the name of the company).

But that doesn't mean that a transman has the right to be treated as a man - the legislation that governs that is the GRA, not the Equality Act. People with GRCs do have the right to be treated as the sex on their GRC, with some rather ambiguous exceptions, but those without a GRC have no such legal right. And since there is no GRC for non-binary, non-binary people do not have the right to be treated as neither male nor female (whatever that would mean anyway).

In relation to the Equality Act 2010 there do NOT (contrary to what some people have written on this thread) need to be any medical steps taken towards transitioning for the protection to kick in.

It's set out in one of the examples given in the explanatory notes: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/1/4

I think it does include non-binary since that auto company bullying case (can't remember the name of the company).

My understanding is that the complainant was protected because there had been a process (or part of a process) - Taylor had said 'I'm trans and I want to start transitioning in the workplace' and had then begun to dress differently etc.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if the complainant had said, 'I'm NB and have always been NB and I don't need to change a thing.'