EDI training at work - is this correct?

[Bananasaur]

The following statement appeared in some recent training: 'Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This includes those who have, are, or will be undergoing gender reassignment.'

I'm confused. Is the implication that someone who has had gender reassignment is entitled to the protections of their 'new' sex? I.e. gender reassignment is sex reassignment? Is this the meaning in law?

Sex and gender reassignment are listed separately elsewhere with all the other protected characteristics. However, the training also goes into gender identity and pronouns at length, and gets more confusing. Terms are not defined and it states we are assigned a sex and gender at birth based on physical characteristics. It includes intersex people under the trans umbrella and uses sex, gender, gender identity etc interchangeably. It also talks about gender aligning with sex - how can two different things be aligned? Isn't that like trying to get my religion (atheist) to align with my shoe size (4)?

I've done a lot of reading around this previously and am really trying to understand it fully but this seems to have been written by someone with a shakier grasp than me.

I work in science.

I am in the process of sticking my head above the parapet for that if nothing else. Senior leadership, HR etc are all very much of the 'it's controversial... be kind' mindset. Any suggestions on an approach that is most likely to garner results would be gratefully received.

We have a huge gender pay gap.

@OperationDessertStorm

We have an intersex awareness training session coming up - it’s at least the second specific one in two years (plus all the other LBGT+ ones). This speaker doesn’t have pronouns and mentions an interest in feminism when googled so I have a tiny hope she’s sensible.

I'm so far (joyfully) wrong on 2 points (Number 10 Office's letter of support for LGB Alliance and Margaret Atwood).

I'm now going for item 3 on which I'd be happy to be wrong but I'd be very surprised if this were an actual DSD/VSD/congenital differences in sex development/intersex awareness session as opposed to someone putting forward a spectrum argument and yet again co-opting a population that has asked not to be used in such discussions.

In the very short section on sex, the training conflated equal pay with the gender pay gap.

Definitely think an intern wrote this...

Good shout on the Nolan podcast! Have read reports but need to listen to it this weekend properly and then point them towards that.

The company EDI initiative is led by the US, which I guess has some bearing on things....

And good idea to highlight some good bits of the training. Just need to find them

@Bananasaur

Good shout on the Nolan podcast! Have read reports but need to listen to it this weekend properly and then point them towards that.

The company EDI initiative is led by the US, which I guess has some bearing on things....

FPFW has produced condensed transcripts of all 10 episodes:

fairplayforwomen.com/stonewall-transcripts/

Thank you for the transcripts!

The training was correct that sex and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with gender identity, preferred pronouns, DSD (disorders of sexual development ie intersex) etc.

In terms of the law, it's all much less complicated than Stonewall and the like would have us all believe.

And many trans people dislike the shift towards 'gender identity' as it blurs their legal status and rights under current legislation.

In terms of how to challenge, it seems that the most effective way is to simplify matters ie to refer to the Equality Act and its protected characteristics.

So, as you say, it's the sex-based pay gap which needs to be looked at and thought about.

@PaleBlueMoonlight

The following statement appeared in some recent training: 'Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This includes those who have, are, or will be undergoing gender reassignment.'

It reads correctly to me. Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This is the case (that they are protected on the basis of their sex) even if they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Ie this doesn’t mean that they have lost their sex based protection.

I am not saying that they aren’t confused! Or even that what it says is what they think they are saying, just that it reads as accurate to me.

The wording is a bit ambiguous, depending on how you're understanding the word "includes". Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex, and those who fall under the gender reassignment protections are included in those sex-based protections, but according to their birth sex, not the one that aligns with the gender they are wishing to be assigned to. In addition, we need to mention the single sex exceptions, where it is possible to discriminate on the basis of sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So technically correct, but needs a bit if caveating.