Suggestions for lawful and thoughtful responses?

[Equalbutdifferent]

Have just completed a survey which contained a section which appeared to be there to determine if respondents had protected characteristics, but rather than asking about sex, asked, a) for gender identity, and b), if gender identity was different than sex observed at birth? I struggle to see how meaningful data on possible sex discrimination can be extracted from these questions so was tempted to drop a line making that point. Any ideas how to do this without sounding discriminatory?

Have also observed an entire programme of events for IWD being delivered that only referenced gender. Same question?

You could ask how people who don't have a gender identity are able to respond?

Gender identity is NOT a protected characteristic so they are misrepresenting the actual law.

just ask why they aren't asking what sex respondents are
maybe with a comment about how that's relevant to the topic of the survey

@Whatsnewpussyhat

Gender identity is NOT a protected characteristic so they are misrepresenting the actual law.

Gender identity IS protected, you can not discriminate against someone because of their gender identity. Gender identity falls under gender reassignment. It's like saying gay people aren't protected because it says sexuality. Pretty absurd.

As StillWeRise says, just ask why they aren't tracking sex for equality purposes and if they try to suggest they can get to that data from the questions they are asking point out that it is more convoluted so less likely to be reliable and, in any case, does not provide a way to infer sex data for anyone who does not consider themselves to have a straight male or female gender.

At least they are asking for sex observed, rather than assigned, at birth, so may not be totally sold on the idea that sex doesn't really matter.

Quack22 you are wrong. Sex is a protected characteristic, gender reassignment is another. Women are not protected from discrimination on the basis of our gender identity. Trans people are not protected on the basis of their gender identity, but because they have or propose to change their gender; it's the reassignment part that is key to the protection, not the resulting gender identity.

Controversial and discredited organisations like Stonewall will try to have people believe "gender identity" is a protected characteristic but they've been basically making shit up as they go along.

You could suggest that they change the phrasing to
a) Sex
and keep the wording for b) the same, that way it would cover both sex and gender reassignment as protected characteristics

@geojellyfish

Quack22 you are wrong. Sex is a protected characteristic, gender reassignment is another. Women are not protected from discrimination on the basis of our gender identity. Trans people are not protected on the basis of their gender identity, but because they have or propose to change their gender; it's the reassignment part that is key to the protection, not the resulting gender identity.

Women are protected from discrimination which means we are treated equally with men, given the same opportunities and treatment. Proposed to change their gender is basically their gender identity. What is the difference between propose to change gender and gender identity.

@Linguini

Controversial and discredited organisations like Stonewall will try to have people believe "gender identity" is a protected characteristic but they've been basically making shit up as they go along.

When have stonewall ever not been controversial? Stonewall have been up against anti lgbt since the day they formed. Lgbt equality has always been controversial to certain people, some things never change. I personally don't see lgbt charities as controversial.

The thing is quack22, people can't change the law just because they don't like the words - no matter what Stonewall claim. If you don't like gender reassignment being a protected characteristic, then you need to campaign (as we do in a democracy) to get it changed to words /meanings you prefer.
Misrepresenting it isn't OK.

Stonewall used to be a very respected organisation and were a go to organisation for those of us in the community - many years ago.
Sadly they morphed into a male supremacist celebrating, anti women organisation some years ago.

Isn't all 'gender identity' different from sex at birth?
Sex is a descriptor of what body type you have.
Gender identity is a feeling, broadly linked with masculinity and femininity.

How can they not be different?

@MrsOvertonsWindow

The thing is quack22, people can't change the law just because they don't like the words - no matter what Stonewall claim. If you don't like gender reassignment being a protected characteristic, then you need to campaign (as we do in a democracy) to get it changed to words /meanings you prefer. Misrepresenting it isn't OK.

Which words? I have no issues with the wording. I just don't believe you that you think a person with a gender identity isn't protected, you think a person without a gender identity is protected, which means the opposite is protected as it's the reverse of that. Both ends of the sides are protected. You seem to think only one side is protected while the other isn't.

There are a lot of threads on the Feminism: Sex & Gender Discussions currently being derailed by a few posters dropping in their dunderhead ploppies and repeating ad nauseam. I honestly think after a factual correction they are best ignored.

Not sure what you think "protected" means, quack.

The term 'gender identity' is not interchangeable with the term 'gender reassignment'. Some people insist everyone has a gender identity but the same people wouldn't consider everyone to have a gender reassignment.

Good point spinning, will endeavour to stick to it.

@bishophaha

Isn't all 'gender identity' different from sex at birth? Sex is a descriptor of what body type you have. Gender identity is a feeling, broadly linked with masculinity and femininity.

How can they not be different?

Gender identity is different from sex, so wouldn't that be a proposed change of gender hence it falls under gender reassignment in that case? Gender identity being the same as ones sex or not existing for one mean it doesn't fall under gender reassignment as there is no proposed change of gender.

@bishophaha

Not sure what you think "protected" means, quack.

The term 'gender identity' is not interchangeable with the term 'gender reassignment'. Some people insist everyone has a gender identity but the same people wouldn't consider everyone to have a gender reassignment.

Protected against discrimination from service providers and employers. What do you think it refers to?

See my other reply in this thread that gives my opinion about gender identity and gender reassignment.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove I miss Banbury. You are absolutely 100% right.

Bunbury. That’s what I miss.

(b), if gender identity was different than sex observed at birth?

For anyone confused, my first post in this thread was referring to this.

Here she is:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4267555-Bunburys-Thirteenth-edition-unlucky-for-some

Whats the point of collecting garbage data, and what are they doing with it? Challenge them on GDPR.

Pages 8-12;
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/711097/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-1-0.pdf

@NumberTheory

As StillWeRise says, just ask why they aren't tracking sex for equality purposes and if they try to suggest they can get to that data from the questions they are asking point out that it is more convoluted so less likely to be reliable and, in any case, does not provide a way to infer sex data for anyone who does not consider themselves to have a straight male or female gender.

At least they are asking for sex observed, rather than assigned, at birth, so may not be totally sold on the idea that sex doesn't really matter.

Thanks to all those who have offered helpful suggestions. Will do this, with a GDPR query as a side.

I'm not sure Number, I may have recalled that second question charitably. It seemed a bizarrely opaque and ineffective way to consider the extent to which sex discrimination is at play.