I was thinking last night that it may make sense for those supportive of sex-based rights to re-formulate the acronym LGBT (or the extended versions) in such a way that it actually reflects the protected characteristics.
This acronym matters because it is often used as a way to rapidly represent protected characteristics and signify inclusivity or fairness - in discussion, in policies and in training - yet the protected characteristic of sexual orientation is grouped alongside other identifiers that are not protected characteristics at all.
What about LGBGR? That would be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (all of which fall under the protected characteristic of sexual orientation) and Gender Reassignment (which is the actual protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010).
This focuses anti-discrimination efforts on sexual orientation and those who are undergoing the process of gender reassignment - as is legally correct and entirely right to do - while the groupings represented by other letters fall within the realm of personal identity choice (or what should be an entirely private in-the-bedroom matter in the case of K!) and therefore fall outside the shorthand acronym.
Personal identity choices
While I would like to be absolutely clear that no one should be bullied, harmed or disadvantaged for personal identity choices my understanding is that they cannot be used as grounds to claim discrimination, e.g. in the workplace. To use non sexual-identity examples, having extensive tattoos or dressing as a goth are personal identity choices - others may not choose it themselves but should still treat the people who do so politely and fairly - but employers can reasonably and legally have policies that ask someone with tattoos to cover them up in the workplace or wear a uniform in the workplace as the personal identity choices of having extensive tattoos or dressing as a goth do not relate to any protected characteristics.
So having covered sexual orientation and gender reassignment under LGBGR, the remaining protected characteristics are:
agedisabilitymarriage or civil partnershippregnancy and maternityracereligion or beliefsex
Could there or should there be an acronym for the remaining protected characteristics? Why doesn't one exist? Is it because the remaining protected characteristics are represented by a multiplicity of different groups/causes? There are organisations campaigning against age discrimination, racial discrimination or disability discrimination, but they don't seem to have the power or effectiveness of Stonewall. Is it because the people campaigning against those forms of discrimination have less power, money and influence in the first place, so their campaigns haven't got as far? Are some protected characteristics 'easier' for the power structures of business, public services or politics to accommodate than others? Why do we hear so much more about gender reassignment than we do about disability? Is it because it is far 'easier' for a business to accommodate the needs of a middle-aged man who decides to go through gender reassignment than it is to employ, retain and promote someone who has a significant disability?
So should sex, age, disability and race be picked out for a new acronym, covering the characteristics that do or can affect absolutely everyone during their lifetime? I suggest SADR.
It would be an interesting sociological experiment to begin confidently using a new acronym and observe people's reactions in the current climate.
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thoughts on acronyms, protected characteristics and power
MaybeDoctor · 04/08/2022 09:50
MaybeDoctor · 04/08/2022 17:48
Yes, that's a very good point about limited protection against disability discrimination.
Is it the case that protections against discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, race or others are higher?
Thelnebriati · 04/08/2022 16:21
I like PPC as a 'top tier' acronym. The other characteristics are divided into material reality and culture/belief.
Protection against disability discrimination is limited; you can only ask an employer to make a reasonable adjustment. That seems sensible to me. I can't make demands that would cost them more to implement that they would gain by employing me. It assumes there's a balance between my rights and the employers. I think it should be applied to other areas where there's a conflict of rights.
achillestoes · 04/08/2022 17:08
Can we also have TOTP?
achillestoes · 04/08/2022 17:09
PPC actually includes everyone, just to be a PITA.
Thelnebriati · 04/08/2022 16:21
I like PPC as a 'top tier' acronym. The other characteristics are divided into material reality and culture/belief.
Protection against disability discrimination is limited; you can only ask an employer to make a reasonable adjustment. That seems sensible to me. I can't make demands that would cost them more to implement that they would gain by employing me. It assumes there's a balance between my rights and the employers. I think it should be applied to other areas where there's a conflict of rights.
YetAnotherSpartacus · 04/08/2022 12:52
Any views on my suggestion of SADR for Sex, Age, Disability and Race?
RADS?
achillestoes · 04/08/2022 10:06
PPC
People with a Protected Characteristic.
This reply has been withdrawn
This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.