Is this legal? Barts Health NHS recruiting for a director of Operations who identifies as female

[apintortwo]

Could someone explain the legal aspects of this in relation to discrimination legislation?

uk.jooble.org/jdp/8593368761237886898/Director-of-Operations-%7C-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust-London?utm_campaign=google_jobs_apply&utm_source=google_jobs_apply&utm_medium=organic

Apologies for the DM article below

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11122945/Fury-sexist-NHS-job-ad-says-preferably-identifies-woman.html

Following with interest. It doesn’t explain why they want someone who identifies as female - unless they mean an actual living, breathing woman? And if men want to apply does that mean they have to specify on their application form that they’re not actually male but identify as female, and then they might get an interview?

It’s bonkers - would definitely be interested in hearing about the legalities of this.

IANAL but that looks dodgy to me. However, I think the Mail article gets it wrong. They're not discriminating against men - they are excluding women. They're advertising for a male who identifies as a woman. An actual woman could not get this job. That's my interpretation, anyway.

I wonder if they're so caught up in new-speak that they mean women - and therefore that, for them, would include trans-women.

It does look dodgy. Generally you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of a protected characteristic (race, sex, gender reassignment, religion etc). However, there are exemptions, so you can specify that someone is a particular race, sex, religion and so on if you are redressing an existing imbalance or there is a particular need (eg female sonographer to perform mammograms). Later on in the ad it says it welcomes applications from Black people to redress an imbalance, which is fine.

Identifies as female, though? That seems illegal to me. And bizarre too. No explanation is given for it.

IANAL but I think you can explain if you have a certain group underrepresented at that level (ie females) and that you welcome applications from this group. But that's it.

You can specify some jobs are for men and women only eg rape crisis jobs. Same goes for some services specifically for ethnic minority groups. And you can put the two together and have some jobs only for ethnic minority women eg DV services.

You can't say "identify as" because for the sex exemptions to be legal, you have to be that sex.

Doesn't look like any exemptions are justified for this job at all.

A healthcare organisation using "identifies as female" FFS.

This shows why language matters. I have no idea if they want a biological female and have worded it badly. Or if they want a male person who says they’re a woman. 🤷‍♀️

Hopefully the white guy who gets it will identify as a black woman to make their management more diverse.

Is this another of those pointless roles on huge salaries which sucks up so much NHS money? Say what you like about the Daily Mail but at least they are willing to bring stuff like this to public attention. How can the NHS be "underfunded " when they can afford massive salaries like this ?

I read that as wanting a transwoman for the job? But they can't surely as the number of people qualified for that job and a transwoman would be tiny....... Confused.

Within gender woo 'ciswomen' (shudder) identify as women as much as men do, because being a woman is an idea. Hope they are flooded with applications from woman identifying GC feminists!

Even better. You could open with:

"I don't just identify as female, I actually am female!!"

They're not discriminating against men - they are excluding women

That would be the most logical interpretation.

Hope they are flooded with applications from woman identifying GC feminists!

I also wonder what would happen in this case!

I don't read it as specifically seeking a transwoman but rather as requiring a belief in gender identity. I'm no lawyer but that sounds pretty dubious to me.

Are they disxrimating against gender critical women because we do not 'identify' as female?

To me it appears from the article that the trust wanted actual females if possible to apply (re-listed ad to widen the short-list in the job where women are underrepresented).

The complaints described in DM are by MRAs claiming it's discrimination. It is not a well worded ad, so they may have a point. If you 'particularly welcome' applications from certain groups you need to explain why, in the advert, clearly.

The trust, however, also seems to think that being female is an identity, which is worrying, but is not addressed in the article at all.

It seems that DM has mixed in rather different issues here, as half the article quotes men's rights groups complaining about the poor discriminated menz, and the other half talks about Stonewall-inspired de-sexing of women's NHS advice pages.

I imagine they mean they want a woman but they know you aren't allowed to say that any more.

TO clarify, by 'not allowed' I mean according to Stonewall law.

It's just their mindless way of saying "a woman". They obviously want to redress an imbalance and want more women, but before going to print some helpful zealot has piped up to say "we should say "identifies as" to be trans inclusive", and nobody has had the wit or the courage (or foolhardiness) to question it.

What I'm interested in, given that gender identity is not a protected characteristic, is whether they can indeed discriminate to their heart's content on it, just as they could say "particularly seeking a Star Wars fan" or "a Sagittarius". Is there a situation where you wouldn't be justified in saying "women only" or "men only", but could say "people who identify as X only?". Which would be discrimination by the back door, in effect, but it would be interesting to see a fine legal mind untangle that.

Yes, I think that's actually quite clear that they are. Not sure this particular expression of gender critical belief has been set in a legal judgment, so it may not be possible to legally challenge it

I’m a female identifying as a male identifying as a female so I thought this would be the job for me.

but when I tried to apply it was page not found ,job no longer available
what has happened

Is the Forstater ruling relevant?

No, I don't think they mean that. You would have be nuts to target an advert for a role of this type at TW, when the pool of suitable people of any sex or gender identity is pretty small.

I think they mean that they encourage applications from women (including TW). Historically, in the NHS, senior ops roles are male-dominated and, as a PP has said, it is not unlawful to encourage applications from under-represented groups.

However, because they are fuckwits, they have chosen this ridiculous wording, which potentially opens them up to accusations of discrimination from men who are not TW, as well as confusing the hell out of potential applicants, and probably pissing off TW (who won't want to be distinguished from women) into the bargain.

I imagine they mean they want a woman but they know you aren't allowed to say that any more

If they are trying to do this, it seems to be a particularly convoluted way to go about it

Yep, I read that as they are looking to recruit a transwoman.