Organisations representing women's legal rights

[Triffiddealer]

Sorry if this has been asked before but:

I've just signed a new contract of employment within the civil service - and the following appears under discrimination:

There must be no unlawful discrimination against any eligible person on the grounds of gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy or maternity, marital status, race, colour, nationality, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religion or belief, age etc.

No mention of sex - as defined in the Equalities Act 2010.

How come they are able to just remove sex discrimination - which is clearly defined as male or female. How is this legal? They are not changing the terms for disability, race or age? I mean even if they added 'sex or gender ID' that would be something to consider- but to just delete it?

I assume they have been Stonewalled - but are any women's organisations campaigning against this and challenging it? As I am just starting and have to pass probation I don't want to do anything officially yet, but can I donate to an organisation that challenges this or can I do anything outside of my job so that sex discrimination isn't just 'deleted'?

Pragmatically, how do you think gender discrimination and sex discrimination differ? If you are facing a practical issue of misogyny in the workplace, do you think the fact it says "gender" not "sex" on your workplace policy would actually change the support you would get or your legal rights in any actual material way? Or is your real objection here to the fact that sex and gender are frequently recognised as synonymous, both in law and common speech, in which case your actual issue here is just one of pedantry about language and not actually a concern that you're not protected against discrimination?

Pragmatically the law is the law and is worded specifically to mean what is intended. Any organisation that chooses to disregarded the actual wording leaves itself open to legal claims. It isn't simply a case of "Ah well, I know what you meant"

If you don't see what I mean to take any other law and change one operative word:

At a zebra crossing piglets have the right of way...

Even if you can't get exorcised by the sex / gender debate surely you can objectively view that!

They are the civil service, if anyone should be getting this right and following the law it should be them. It is very important that these things are correct. Sex and gender are different.

My company did this, so I pointed it out to HR. They changed it immediately, they can hardy argue it's the Equality Act, not some made up rules....

@SevenWaystoLeave

From the Equality Act 2010 -

'What are protected characteristics?

It is against the law to discriminate against someone because of:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex (my bold)
sexual orientation

These are called protected characteristics.'

Not gender. Sex.

As a pp says, this is the actual wording in the Act and is worded specifically to mean what is intended.

So if you agree that words do matter then @SevenWaystoLeave you'll apologise to the op for calling them a pedant.

@SevenWaystoLeave

Pragmatically, how do you think gender discrimination and sex discrimination differ? If you are facing a practical issue of misogyny in the workplace, do you think the fact it says "gender" not "sex" on your workplace policy would actually change the support you would get or your legal rights in any actual material way? Or is your real objection here to the fact that sex and gender are frequently recognised as synonymous, both in law and common speech, in which case your actual issue here is just one of pedantry about language and not actually a concern that you're not protected against discrimination?

Gender discrimination might include things like giving "women" (in the gender meaning) shit work like always asking them to make the tea for a meeting. Sex discrimination might include things like being made redundant without due process during maternity leave.

I've been subject to both.

Words matter.

@SevenWaystoLeave

Pragmatically, how do you think gender discrimination and sex discrimination differ? If you are facing a practical issue of misogyny in the workplace, do you think the fact it says "gender" not "sex" on your workplace policy would actually change the support you would get or your legal rights in any actual material way? Or is your real objection here to the fact that sex and gender are frequently recognised as synonymous, both in law and common speech, in which case your actual issue here is just one of pedantry about language and not actually a concern that you're not protected against discrimination?

Wanting sex based rights is pedantry .

It is a legal definition and a legal right. In law terminology matters. I am sure you are well aware of that - it does not reflect the law. If they omitted race or age discrimination or replaced them with 'similar' terms that were open for interpretation that would also be an issue. But oddly it's only sex-based rights (which for the vast majority of issues means women's rights) that are omitted. I'd like to know how that's possible.

I have no idea how gender discrimination differs or if it infringes on sex discrimination as there is no definition of 'gender discrimination'.

My question to anyone who doesn't see the removal of rights as 'pedantry' is what can be done about it? Can any women's organisations raise a legal challenge about this? How is it even possible to remove one right like this?

*Gender discrimination might include things like giving "women" (in the gender meaning) shit work like always asking them to make the tea for a meeting. Sex discrimination might include things like being made redundant without due process during maternity leave.

I've been subject to both.

Words matter.*

But you've just made up that distinction yourself. Legally and colloquially, both of these could be described as sex discrimination, or both could be described as gender discrimination. My point is using gender as a synonym for sex (which is normal and common and one of its dictionary definitions) doesn't actually impact company policy or your rights in law. So it is simply pedantry to demand it be changed since it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

😃

If that was supposed to be a sophisticated sleight of hand with words it failed.

Mainly because most posters here have read the EA2010, know about various court rulings etc.

We do know what sex is legally.

We have no idea what 'gender' is legally as there is no such legal term.

And we know you know that too, as you've been part of many similar threads.

Try again but without the patronising faux simplicity.

It matters because sex means sex. Gender more recently can be a coy synonym for sex, but it can also mean woowoo bollocks that has no scientific or legal basis (ie cat gender).

@Beowulfa

It matters because sex means sex. Gender more recently can be a coy synonym for sex, but it can also mean woowoo bollocks that has no scientific or legal basis (ie cat gender).

I repeat, do you think the fact this company's policy says gender not sex would actually make a difference in practice if you had an issue with, let's say, maternity leave, that you felt was discriminatory? Do you think if you complained about such an issue HR would tap the policy and be like "Sorry this says gender and you're talking about sex so we can't help"? Do you actually think they have used this wording deliberately to avoid liability in such cases? Do you think this would even work? Again, what practical difference would it actually make, if you had a real problem that you had to take to HR?

The answer is none at all, as you all well know.

(And no, gender as a synonym for sex is not recent, it's been in use for centuries and is far older than the "gender as a social construct" definition, so if you really want to be a linguistic prescriptivist, that's the definition you ought to prefer).

You can repeat that as often as you like. You can avoid the questions raised as often as you like.

We ALL know that sex has a legal definition and is used in law and that gender does not.

Colloquialisms and shoulder shrugging doesn't change that.

@SevenWaystoLeave ...

Meh, let's leave all inaccurate policies as they are then, because, well it's fine- everyone will get the gist when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it!

Um, no. That's why the wording of contracts and policies are often deliberated over for days. In the case of a tribunal both employees and employers can exploit land gauge should they feel so inclined. So language within these documents should be accurate. Not just "good enough". The policy should match the wording of the actual Equality Act. Sex is the protected character as per that Act not gender. If the Act changes, then so be it, and the wording can be updated on their internal publications!

Even if the op just points out that the actual language used isn't right.

Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't matter full stop.

Seven -

If you don't think legal terminology matters in matters of law, that's an interesting, but possibly not very well-informed position.

I don't really think any of us need to debate it with you as you are completely convinced that sex and gender are synonymous. Therefore it makes no difference if we change it back to the legally correct terminology.

If you don't think it makes any difference, why are you spending your time arguing about it on the internet? That would seem a bit... err pedantic?

@Triffiddealer I can't find specific campaigns regarding organisations misrepresenting the protected characteristics as listed in the Equality Act 2010. Women's Place UK look at organisations who seek to abolish single sex exemptions so they might be a good organisation to speak to.

I've seen quite a few posters on this board with the same issue and they have spoken to their organisations and pointed out that they have not listed the correct protected characteristics (and it is sex, not gender, no matter how much some posters insist). In most instances, the organisation has then changed it because....well, they were wrong.

You make a good point that it's only sex which is being omitted. I wonder why that is....

Of course it makes a difference If someone has been passed over for promotion because they are female they can complain on the basis of sex discrimination. If they can only complain on the basis of gender discrimination then the employer can point to Barbara, a transwoman who was promoted, and say 'See, you and Barbara are the same gender so we didn't discriminate'

Legally and colloquially, both of these could be described as sex discrimination, or both could be described as gender discrimination.

There is no such thing as "gender discrimination" in the Equality Act and related laws, in England. The distinction was made crystal clear in Scotland when a group of Green MPs were raging because raped women wanted to specify the sex of their forensic examiner, rather than their gender. I'm sure you must be aware of this, whatever you think about it.

www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex

www.thenational.scot/news/18936441.msps-overwhelmingly-vote-replace-gender-sex-rape-support-law/

How would an employmnet tribunal deal with a situation in which a transman was experiencing sex discrimination ie sexist male boss always asks them to make tea and clear up after meetings. The boss "knows" they're actually a woman no matter what their pronouns, so behaves accordingly.

Under "gender" as a protected characteristic, the boss could claim they were actually being really progressive by this task allocation, as the transman insists their gender is male.

OP as this is the Civil Service, write to HR/the person who sent out the contract. Say I’ve just re-read my contract and realised there is a mistake, it should say sex, age etc. please could you correct and reissue the contract.

If they say no gender is correct then reply linking to the EA2010 legislation pointing out the legal protected characteristic is sex.

Under "gender" as a protected characteristic, the boss could claim they were actually being really progressive by this task allocation, as the transman insists their gender is male.

That's an interesting point.

Because trying to replace the word sex with the word gender after the meaning of gender has been co-opted to mean something else entirely is another underhanded means of stealing womens rights.

If people just accept it; even if only due to ignorance or thinking it can cause little harm, it can be used as faked evidence of 'acceptance' of sex based rights being eroded in favour of gender based rights.

People who believe gender matters still have a sex which can be discriminated against, just as those who have had their gender reassigned are protected.

Using gender instead of sex is harmful as it is not only not the law, but it also directly discriminates against those who do not believe in gender by trying to remove their legal rights.