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?

Thinking about it. I've worked in lots of jobs with uniforms (not like police, more like Asda). Without exception, the women wanted the right to wear the uniform of the men (ie trousers and polo, not tights and beige nylon housecoat we had when I did work at Asda).

Except of course, in the correct shape and size for female bodies - looking at you Curries, who only had one shape of short sleeved shirt, which by the time it went round my boobs, had arm holes half-way down to my waist so if I held my arms up, customers could see straight down to my bra - ie. sex not gender..

When I think of the 'gendered' discriminations women suffer from in the workplace (the 'norms and forms' applied to us, whether we assent to them or not), I am unconvinced that transwomen are of the same 'gender' as women.

Anyone who argues that laws, rules, rights and safeguarding measures should be based on a bunch of stereotypes instead of facts (in the context of the workplace or in any other context) is dangerous or an idiot. Or both.

Its a ludicrous suggestion that fails the Chesterton's Fence test. Its only 'workable' if you completely ignore the fact women can't turn biology off to suit men.

No thank you Robin. You are wrong for so many reasons.

This passage speaks volumes in its understatement:

"men and women have, traditionally, fared differently in career advancement or pay and so these aspects need to be monitored and corrected."

Men and women have not just "fared differently", FFS.

RMW argues for a situation that would benefit RMW and others like RMW to the detriment of all females - hardly surprising.
#NoThankYou.

@WeeBisom

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?

Indeed - it’s the biological equivalent of saying that we can’t see photons so how do we know if the light switch is on or off? Daft as a brush.

(Not to be brushphobic of course 🤣)

It is sobering to realise just how much some people hate women.

"Please note that this article expresses the views of the writer and no-one else."

Robin, when I was assaulted in the workplace it was my female sexed body the male person was interested in. Not my gender expression. He was quite strong. Taller and stronger than me because of his male body.

This has nothing to do with clothes, hair, lipstick and new names.

It’s just another way of prolonging the argument and obscuring the issue - get everyone bogged down in pseudo intellectual conversations to pretend we need a host of different rules for every situation.

Now that No Debate has fallen this is the next move will - engage in arguments over every area (workplaces, individual sports, medical treatment, language, employment,) as if somehow a personal sense of Gender Identity will provide a better system to organise these things by than sex.

it’s the biological equivalent of saying that we can’t see photons so how do we know if the light switch is on or off?

Good analogy.

... as if somehow a personal sense of Gender Identity will provide a better system to organise these things by than sex.

Such a strange idea, given that many of us don't have a 'personal sense of gender identity'. I vehemently reject the notion that anything should be organised by other peoples perception of what a woman's non-existent 'gender identity' should be.

Personally as someone who has suffered discrimination because I potentially could get pregnant, I find Robin's theory that they suffer the same discrimination as women fucking offensive.

Didn't Robin say recently that while Robin dresses in womanly clothing, Robin uses Robin's naturally manly voice to give Robin an advantage in court, rather than adopt a lighter, more feminine way of speaking?

So clearly sex matters for some things.

All I am going to say on this thread is that White has been told all this before.

On a thread where I got two strikes explaining just how discriminated against I have been due to sex. And a number of others earned strikes that night too. Many women spent a lot of time writing out their experiences.

For a person that spends time on MN, there really is a distinct determination to ignore sex based discrimination shown by them. Very determined.

No.

Robin is wronger than a very wrong thing. Again

What was wrong with my comment MNHQ? Stating the biological sex of the author of the article?
Or saying that the author of the article hates adult human females?

Hmm, so Robin has been told that women are discriminated against on the basis of sex and yet has written this article anyway. I just don't know how anyone can take the conclusion that gender should be prioritised over sex seriously when the argument is just so weak.

I was asked in an interview for pupillage (on the job training for newly qualified barristers) what would happen to my legal career if I got pregnant. This was 20 odd years ago but it still happens and women still leave the Bar in droves when they hit the child bearing years.

Did that ever happen to you Robin?

Thought not.

This article in a nut shell really demonstrates how unsimilar a woman's experience and a transwoman's experience really is. And why women, when describing what it is to be a woman always use our biology and socialisation based off that biology and treatment by others based off that biology as the way we know we are women

^^This. It’s always our biology that defines us and how we’re treated. Not a single female in one of my institutions SMTs. That’s not because we wear different clothes…

@Rummikub

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

It’s annoyed me that I was deleted. I used the incorrect pronoun - Robin is a unisex name.

I get letters/ emails addressed to Mr Rummikub in real life. I don’t get annoyed I just accept that my name is ambiguous sex/gender.
I said Robin is wrong. Women suffer inequalities due to their biological sex.

MNHQ full on gaslighting

They should consider intent.
I get all kinds of things that could be considered racist said to me. Most of the time I know it’s not intentional.