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?

@Cuck00soup

Wait, maybe Robin has a point. Now that I'm menopausal and give fewer fucks, can I demand a pay rise because I wear trousers to work?

definitely. You might have to grow a big bushy tache and start pinching people's bottoms, though, I think that's one of the things in the Gender Rules.

@Itsnotdeep

I have just had to amend our (new) Diversity Monitoring Form because it only asks about gender (for these purposes they defined gender as "Male, Female, Non Binary, Trans-woman and Transmen not sex. I argued that sex needs to be included (apart from anything else we're an organisation that helps women!). I was told that ACAS only refer to gender now and sex is not relevant. I was told that gender needs to be included ) because of the rights that trans people have under the Equality Act.

Anyway, I won, sex is included. But my God, it's depressing how everybody has bought into this shit.

I 100% do not agree with Robin.

Well that's bollocks, anyway.

www.acas.org.uk/if-youre-treated-unfairly-at-work/being-discriminated-against

'By law, being ‘discriminated against’ is when you’re treated unfairly because of any of the following:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage or civil partnership
pregnancy or maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

These are known as ‘protected characteristics’. It’s against the law for anyone to treat you unfairly because of any of them.

For example, your manager stops you from applying for promotion because of your sex.'

I'll draw a manly moustache on. Might draw the line at bottom pinching, but perhaps I could take up loud burping & farting to show willing.

ACAS are very clear and refer to sex throughout. They also talk about pregnancy and menopause in the workplace.

@ANewCreation

Bunbury, in her less well known but still seminal work 'Entitlement: what's in it for me?' has a useful reminder for us.

Reporting, with the aim of successfully deleting every post on a thread that uses male sex pronouns to describe an adult of the male sex, or posts where women have simply used the word 'man' to describe 'a male of any age' as per the usage in the Equality Act 2010, even if legally apposite where no GRC is involved, is deployed as a necessary silencing tactic.

When it is demonstrably impossible to engage or muster a coherent counter-argument, there being none, it is far simpler to use the Achilles heel of the FWR board and to ask mods to delete a long / pithy / accurate / powerful post because it contains one disputed pronoun. Strikes on deleted posts on any threads where the article's author is referenced are a frequent and particular quirk, pour discourager les autres. So initials or surnames, roles and job titles are your friend.

Under this chilling regime, Women's reflections, our thoughts, our lived experience, our sex-based reality, our time and effort and energy, our engagement, our blood, sweat and tears and the truth of our bodies and words are literally expunged from the record.

This perfectly demonstrates why Gender should absolutely never be prioritised over Sex in the workplace and all such moves should be resisted.

Because it never benefits women.

This, Bunbury privately reflected in a rare moment of vulgar frustration, 'really, really, really gets on my tits'...

This bears repeating...

@Itsnotdeep Great job, good for you

To the OP.... Hell NO.

yes I knew it was bollocks. I'm a lawyer!

It's the utter brainwashing that's so depressing.

Yes. Very disheartening. But well done for sticking to your guns. And thanks - every time a woman does this it makes it easier for others.

@Cuck00soup

Perhaps something like this? Or indeed a full-on fake beard, so you can stroke your beard in a pensive & authoritative way.

Perfect. Even the description says it instantly transforms you. Thank you for your dedication to this important cause.

@ANewCreation

Bunbury, in her less well known but still seminal work 'Entitlement: what's in it for me?' has a useful reminder for us.

Reporting, with the aim of successfully deleting every post on a thread that uses male sex pronouns to describe an adult of the male sex, or posts where women have simply used the word 'man' to describe 'a male of any age' as per the usage in the Equality Act 2010, even if legally apposite where no GRC is involved, is deployed as a necessary silencing tactic.

When it is demonstrably impossible to engage or muster a coherent counter-argument, there being none, it is far simpler to use the Achilles heel of the FWR board and to ask mods to delete a long / pithy / accurate / powerful post because it contains one disputed pronoun. Strikes on deleted posts on any threads where the article's author is referenced are a frequent and particular quirk, pour discourager les autres. So initials or surnames, roles and job titles are your friend.

Under this chilling regime, Women's reflections, our thoughts, our lived experience, our sex-based reality, our time and effort and energy, our engagement, our blood, sweat and tears and the truth of our bodies and words are literally expunged from the record.

This perfectly demonstrates why Gender should absolutely never be prioritised over Sex in the workplace and all such moves should be resisted.

Because it never benefits women.

This, Bunbury privately reflected in a rare moment of vulgar frustration, 'really, really, really gets on my tits'...

Absolutely this. A 'chilling regime'. Women's voices being erased, facts being censored. Replaced by male voices, lies and gaslighting. On a platform that was supposed to be a place for women, mothers to finally be heard. For shame.

My advice was that the maternity leave went to the trans woman, and the trans man had to be dealt with under the paternity provisions.
Please tell me this was an adoption and that RMW did not seriously argue that it was appropriate for a parent to leave their infant and go back to work, what 2 weeks after giving birth? Presumably still bleeding? while the parent who had not given birth stayed at home?

Floisme I don’t know how that situation wouldn’t raise red flags for abuse, coercive control in particular and perhaps more.

Isn't it the case that legally a company cannot ask an employee who has just given birth to return to work within 2 weeks of delivery, as in it would be a criminal offence to do so?

They certainly can't ask the mother who has given birth to return to work within two weeks. They are not allowed to.

@Floisme

My advice was that the maternity leave went to the trans woman, and the trans man had to be dealt with under the paternity provisions. Please tell me this was an adoption and that RMW did not seriously argue that it was appropriate for a parent to leave their infant and go back to work, what 2 weeks after giving birth? Presumably still bleeding? while the parent who had not given birth stayed at home?

If it was an adoption, then it sounds like it was a case where more appropriate rights were needed. Given the ability of gay couples to adopt, they shouldn't have to be considered within the heteronormative concepts of maternity and paternity - rather, as I suggested upthread, there should be parental rights for new parents, in addition to specific maternity rights for birth mothers and breast feeding.

I agree Errol. I questioned the use of 'maternity' and 'paternity' for this case. To me, if it was adoption, then the leave arrangements for adoption would apply and not 'maternity' leave.

That was a really bizarre statement by White.

Adoption Leave can be done taken by a man or a woman. It is not sex based. Only one person in a couple can take it but shared parental leave may be an option.

1. The idea that women aren't discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of sex is laughable. Ask any of the multitude of women who have been sidelined at work after getting pregnant or who didn't get the job in the first place because an employer thought she might. Or the many women who've struggled with heavy periods or menopause or sexually harassing bosses etc etc etc.
2. Gender as social norms is something that is imposed on women. It's not something innate that we identify with. Imposing those social norms on women in the workplace and writing into policy that most women naturally comply with them (defining women as cis) is pretty much the definition of sexism. It has no place in any workplace.

@DaisiesandButtercups

Adoption Leave can be done taken by a man or a woman. It is not sex based. Only one person in a couple can take it but shared parental leave may be an option.

Good... I'd hoped that was the case.

@TInkyWlnky

They certainly can't ask the mother who has given birth to return to work within two weeks. They are not allowed to.

This was my understanding and Ive just checked to confirm. Indeed it’s 4 weeks if you work in a factory www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/leave