Should 'gender' rather than 'sex' be prioritised in the workplace?

[WeeBisom]

I've just read an article by Robin White (www.internationalemploymentlawyer.com/news/rationalising-sex-and-gender-terms-workplace) arguing that gender, rather than sex, should be the prioritised characteristic in the context of the workplace. I have some problems with this, and wondered what other people think.

Robin defines sex as a 'physiological characteristic', and gender as 'the social norms or forms associated with males or females.' Robin then goes on to say that in the workplace, sex is not important. Rather, gender is. But sex does take primacy in the context of marriage, and medical care.

The reason for this is because when you get a job, the employer does not get you to prove your sex by testing your chromosomes or checking your genitals. So the term 'sex' in the equality act must refer to something other than biological sex when it comes to workplace discrimination, because employers simply aren't interested in your junk.
White then argues that social norms like separate toilets, sleeping accommodation and changing facilities are based on gender, not sex. And the gender pay gap is also to do with gender, not sex. White concludes "sex may mean different things in the registrars office, the gp surgery and the workplace. And in the workplace we may conclude that when we say sex we really mean gender."

Here are my issues with this.

1. The Equality act 2010 expressly defines 'woman' as a member of the female sex. It doesn't mention gender. So there is no reason to import the term 'gender' into the equality act. The Gender Recognition act 2004 uses sex and gender interchangeably, but that is no reason to apply this to the equality act.

2. The claim about the employer not testing your chromosomes is a straw man. The doctor or wedding registrar doesn't test chromosomes or inspect genitals either.In fact, there is no context where you have to prove your biological sex by getting a chromosome test. Sex doesn't need to be verified with an invasive test...it can be verified by looking at birth certificates (or just looking at the person.)

3. Robin is incorrect to say that separate toilets, separate changing facilities etc are differences imposed based on 'gender'. The real reason we have separate facilities is to protect female people (who are oppressed by male people) from sexual violence, and the male gaze. It is implausible to suggest that we segregate people based on how feminine or masculine they are. The true reason is sex based, and due to sex based oppression.
   Similarly, Robin's explanation of the gender pay gap is very strange. Why would socially feminine people be paid less than masculine people? The gender pay gap only makes sense when you realise that women are penalised for having babies or the assumption they will have babies...all linked to their sex.

As far as I can see, there is no reason at all to prioritise gender in the workplace over sex. Any thoughts about this?

I've read that RMW is regarded as intelligent. However, after several interactions with them and having read some of their writing I find it extremely difficult to believe. I mean, I'm not even going to go into feminism but the bizarre assertion that toilets are separated by gender is just mind-blowing. Does RMW not know female and male humans have different urinary plumbing and logistical needs eg male humans able to take advantage of the space-saving speed and efficiency urinals provide whereas women would just piddle down our legs so need something different with the knock-on of queues etc? 🤯

Every day there's another grim display of how those born male fail to acknowledge or respect the sex based oppression that women face. So when RMW states:
Sex”, therefore, may mean different things in the registrar’s office, the GP’s surgery, and the workplace. And in the workplace we may conclude that when we say “sex” we really mean “gender

Nope. Discrimination against women and girls n the work place, in medicine and elsewhere is based on our sex, not gender. This entrenched determination to obliterate women's sex based rights actually feels quite sinister.

No is the answer to the question in the title of the thread.

My comments about RMW can not be written here if I want to keep my MN account.

I must remember to tell my daughters to chant 'i identify as a man' when they are walking alone at night to ward off would be rapists. Or to also identify as the male gender so that they can compete in male sports and have an equal chance of winning. What percentage of trans people are really not identifiable by their born sex without seeing their genetalia, i wondeemr? Very very few given that hands/centre of gravity/height/foot size is significantly different between the average male and female

Of course not, it's nonsense.
Robin White has no credibility, as Robin White has never had the experiences that women and girls have.
What Robin White has got is vested interest.

No, obviously not. Ridiculous suggestion. Don't even know where to begin with toilets being separated on gender not sex.

All this shows is that Robin is either clueless or doesn't care about the real issues which affect women in the workplace.
Does Robin have any notion at all about what 'structural sexism' actually entails?

The desire is to remove all rights for women. If it wasn't why wouldn't people like RMW just fight for their own rights and accept they are different
That and the need to be validated. Most TW seem to not want to mill around a changing room with 20 other TW. They want to be in with females. Why is that?

Such good points about menstruation, menopause, pregnancy etc all being incredibly relevant to women in the workplace. How is this to be accommodated under 'gender'?

Also in some roles there can be issues related to size and/or strength (eg recent case of the petite bus driver).
I can't think of any issues where 'gender' is an issue - other than perhaps relatively trivial and hopefully easily solved ones where employers foolishly try to impose different dress codes.

The women at my work going through menopause, pregnancy or just common or garden menstruation want single sex toilets. I guarantee they do not give two fucks about segregation according to hairstyle or frockage. They want a space where they can deal with women's issues without a male entering the space.

However 'feminine ' a male feels they will not be dealing with periods miscarriage menopausal flooding. Ever.

@CuntAmongstThePigeons

No, obviously not. Ridiculous suggestion. Don't even know where to begin with toilets being separated on gender not sex.

Not to mention where is that poor Neptunian MNetter supposed to go if it's all gender based? How many spaces exactly are we going to need, there's hundreds of genders.

At best it will be the gender you are perceived to be that matters

Which is basically your sex ( and occasionally transgender status ( because it is usually clear ))

RMW argued a case for a transwoman (male) person to get maternity leave whilst the transman (female who had given birth) to go back to work. Ignoring that the female needs time to recover

Seriously? I've not heard this one. Didn't expect Robin to actually go as far as actively arguing against transmen's and nonbinary females' rights, rather than just implicitly.

Robin is simply unable to accept that women are saying "no" to males.

Robin is an example of the dangers of combining advantage (education plus the obvious structural advantage they have which I'm unclear whether I'm allowed to name) plus prejudice (against women).

I'm sure RMW is hovering over this as usual. Or will be when they have finished work 😁

Robin, it's sex, not gender that matters. Biological reality. That's it.

This suggestion of gender > sex is just a nonsense. And I am beyond fed up of having the rights of women (to be clear, the sex class of adult human females) questioned and debated as if they are somehow negotiable or optional. Just no.

When I go to pump in the womens room or the breastfeeding room I would rather men not be in there. I would rather anyone who will never be pregnant, breast feed or have to pump use the facilities and I don’t want someone “feeling” like a woman to invade upon woman’s spaces. My company provides a breastfeeding room. Should a man who “feels” like a woman be able to use this facility?

We are prioritizing feelings over the actual needs of women. There is a safety issue around why women have women only spaces and they need to stay in place.

So no.. sex takes priority. And I’m sorry.. there are only 2 genders. Male and female. Sex and gender mean the same thing. Funny how when the social media fanatics have gender reveal parties and post online it is boy or girl.. but there are over 100 genders now? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Give me a break. You’re free to live and dress how you want but women and girls deserve single sex spaces. And we don’t have to validate or participate in validating your self image. Just do you and live your life.

Most ppl agree trans ppl should be able to live their life without harassment and no one should attack them or discriminate against them. But women also should not have to be subjected to sharing spaces with a penis or anyone who has ever had a penis.

@bordermidgebite

At best it will be the gender you are perceived to be that matters

Which is basically your sex ( and occasionally transgender status ( because it is usually clear ))

Yes. Masculinity and male socialisation has a way of showing through lipstick, hair and high heels. I mean we all know that! I can't believe we've gone so far that people have to pretend to not know this.

No because it is sex that is important and why women are discriminated against in the workplace. It is the fact that the female sex class is the one that gets pregnant, gives birth and lactates that is why we are discriminated against not because we have long hair or wear skirts or similar irrelevant gender issues.

I am also surprised at Robin referring to the trope that 'you don't see chromosomes so you can't track biological sex'. It's a remarkably weak argument. It seems that women have a very strong sense that sex is the protected characteristic of choice in the workplace, so exactly...why displace that when trans people are already protected with the characteristic of gender reassignment?

From the everyday sexism when I was a young employee, having to work out if male colleagues were interested in my ideas or my tits, being talked over or told to speak up by middle-aged men in the office, to the evident displeasure when I needed time off for maternity appointments, to fighting for 15 minutes ‘flexible’ working so I could get to the nursery, having to cover up for kids illnesses so I wouldn’t be viewed as slacking, seen to be slacking as I did get their illnesses and was too exhausted to ‘man-up’ and gulp the day nurse to continue working, a couple of miscarriages - also covered up, going part-time and then fighting really hard to get a full-time job again when the DCs were older, just getting back on track and thinking I might get a promotion when I realised I was in a young woman’s game and all my male contemporaries had steamed ahead and now being dog-tired, stiff and sleep deprived due to the menopause. All sex-based not gender, Robin.
One thing that has changed is that I can and now write menopause when explaining the odd day I’ve had off due to symptoms and that’s because my workplace has moved a fair way forward in recognising how sex and biological reality affects half its employees

Sex matters.

That’s it.

Sex matters because the reason that women have been historically kept out of large swathes of the working world is because of the fact that we are the sex that has babies. Physically, the impact of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding matters, affects employment and nothing will ever change that. Socially, raising and looking after children matters, the pace of change on that is glacial, and while that could change in terms of the majority of the impact being on women, it has not as yet manifested.

We can faff around with gender all we like, but that won’t change physical reality.

So no, I do not agree that gender can be substituted for sex in matters pertaining to womens rights, without negatively impacting women (by which I mean biological females), so I wouldn’t ever support a push to do that.

No, thank you.