What would the impact be if gender identity were the protected characteristic?

[rabbitwoman]

We are commonly told that gender identity is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act, when we all know that it is gender reassignment, but I often ponder if making gender identity the protected characteristic would actually be a better option?

If gender identity was a protected characteristic, then ergo so would not being trans gender and those who do not have a gender identity.

It would then certainly protect GC people from harassment or detriment as well as trans people, wouldn't it?

I am not a, lawyer, but my thinking is that It would be fairly pointless for anyone claiming to be a woman under that PC to demand access to womens spaces because a counterclaim could be made by anyone GC that they are not in fact a woman at all under the same PC? Surely?

A blessing and a curse......

I have just set out these thoughts quickly before going to work but I do wonder if this has any legal legs to it?

I wonder if it is still even possible to argue there is no clash between trans rights and women's rights any more!?

It is but not in good faith. There are so many examples now where the rights of TW collide with the rights of women.

How much would it cost her to raise a claim, and how would she pay? Tribunals are supposed to be free if you represent yourself but how on earth is a layman supposed to wrestle with these concepts?

I would love to see a case where a woman (who has been sanctioned for being GC) takes an employer to court as litigant in person. It would be such a good example to other women that you don't need to crowd fund £200,000 to get a result. The more case law from the high profile cases the easier it will be for women following suit.

I’m sorry to say that you have some more research to do.

May I suggest that when you are trying to convince people of things it is easier to acheive your goal if you take the time to speel out and reference exactly what you are saying?

This becomes even more true when you are in an environment where a large proportion of the audience is hostile to your beliefs and unsure whether they can trust you.

Does Robin now identify as female medical expert as well, lecturing us here on whether people with DSD have a defined biological sex? Do you Robin?

I’m sorry to say that you have some more research to do.

Are you saying that you think people with DSD's don't have a biological sex?

Again, all differences in human sex development are sex specific. They are included in the EA2010 in exactly the same way everyone else is.

Here's Maya on the Jaguar Land Rover case.

a-question-of-consent.net/2021/01/02/taylor-v-jaguar-landrover-a-landmark-case-or-losing-sight-of-the-landmarks-of-reality/

Worth watching the PN video of 2017 of Taylor who was always known at work by their male name and no longer describes themself as gender fluid but as a transwoman.

Here's a link to the full judgment in the case.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc8d559d3bf7f7f5c134ad3/Ms_R_Taylor_v_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Limited_-1304471.2018-_Reasons.pdf

The judgement ended up relying heavily on some words of Vera Baird, the then Solicitor General, recorded in Committee stage in Hansard to establish that gender reassignment was 'a personal move away from ones birth sex into a state of one's choice'.

(interesting that it's 'one's choice')

'Someone who has a gender-identity that is different to that of their recorded natal sex is covered too'.

Yes, it is true that Lynne Featherstone was really pushing for the protected characteristic in the Equality Act to be gender identity rather than gender reassignment but fortunately this was rejected.

lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/06/13/following-equality-bill-through/

"The protected characteristic currently in the list as ‘gender reassignment’ we wanted changed to ‘gender identity’. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender – where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to – at the other end of the scale – gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around ‘reassignment’ are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender."

So, guess the current muddled wording for GR could have been worse, in order to include the 'confused'...

As an aside, there was also rather surreal discussion about whether Dame Edna Everage would also be covered by the legislation.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s03.htm

Thursday 11June 2009

Committee stage 6th sitting

BUT, more importantly, far more clarity is brought by Baroness Thornton, Labour presenting the Equality Bill to the Lords 6 months later in January 2010, explaining exactly whom the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (clause 7) was, by then, designed to protect.

There is a definite switch between the positions expressed at committee stage - where the wooliness of gender identity is being teased out and rejected - and later in the Lords.

It would, I believe, have been a very useful and extremely apposite Hansard-based counter argument in the JLR case had they chosen to appeal. (Also highly relevant to EI in 'boy mode' and 'girl mode'.)

"The point I was making is that that is the range of things that could happen for a transsexual person.

However, Clause 7 does not cover transvestites or others who choose temporarily to adopt the appearance of the opposite gender.

While we do not condone anyone being treated badly because of the way in which they present themselves, it would not be appropriate to provide people who present themselves temporarily as of a gender other than their birth gender with the same protection against discrimination that is available to a person with gender dysphoria, who is somebody who has been assigned one gender at birth, but believes that they are of another gender. That is the point—it is what happens to that person that the Bill attempts to address."

View the Hansard contribution by Baroness Thornton on Monday 11 January 2010

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2010-01-11/debates/10011139000077/EqualityBill?highlight=transvestites#contribution-10011149000003

See too the end of this thread for further discussion

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4200083-For-Women-Scotland-lose-case?pg=13

Gender identity is never defined - and is probably undefineable without recourse to feelings, sexist stereotypes or metaphysical thinking- so, as Hansard records, would make for very poor law.

Gender Expression on the other hand might have had legs and would, in my view, be preferable to Gender Reassignment by covering all those who are gender non conforming, without disturbing the protected characteristic of Sex.

So, for example, a man could dress in feminine clothes, wear makeup and heels, call himself by a feminine name and know that he should not be discriminated against in the workplace for doing so. Obviously he would not need to use female facilities because he would be kept safe in the men's by his protected characteristic of gender expression.

Having said that, does giant boobs teacher in Canada shows that there may be pitfalls to gender expression too?

Yes this.

It is akin to the statement :

"if you are a heretic, or atheist as some would prefer to say..."

If the law can only define me from within a religious belief system then we live in a religious state.

wow.

many of you are correct. it is amazing how complex this actually is - which again, makes it absolutely inaccessible for so many people.

There IS a clash of rights the way things stand presently and no one seems happy. I am always up for finding ways everyone can feel safe and comfortable - i really do not see why trans rights and same sex rights cannot run in parallel and why laws cannot be enforced to ensure noone is excluded from public life.

Soundbite, single sentence social media really isn’t the place to discuss such complex and sensitive issues, especially where every word is treated as an opportunity to ‘have a go’ (‘poach’) or make a point.

I’ll leave you to it and get back to work. As it happens I have a 900 page bundle (not put together by me!) to get my head into.

In other words

Actually you goofed/misspoke

Translation "I am far too busy and important to answer your trivial questions, little people. I am not willing to justify what I have said, nor am I prepared to admit when I am wrong. But not only that, some dreadful posters are trying to make a POINT when they reply to me and that is an outrage!"

Not at all. I’m happy to continue a conversation but not a conversation where every second comment is an insult.

I do have better things to do than that.

Lol you are just trolling at this point. If you can't cope with writing more than a single sentence at a time perhaps try twitter which is also great for people who love to make vague, facetious, patronising comments like "I’m sorry to say that you have some more research to do" which is akin to "read more" and "do better". As it goes Mumsnet is a pretty good forum for having conversations about complex and sensitive issues. Thousands of women do it every day.

I've just quickly checked and I can't see how there are any insults directed at you today, let alone every second comment. Nor can I see any deleted posts.

There may have been some posts that showed little respect as they said you were wrong, but surely you can handle that?

What is the worst insult you received on here today? Can you answer that?

I believe that it is very very poor form to drop into a "conversation", say a few sentences, then leave in bit of a strop having invented being insulted and having failed to justify any of your points or addressed counter-points.

I made a fairly long post at 12.01 which you completely ignored. As is your right.

mumsnet - a place for gender critical feminists to come to learn that there is no point trying to find a TRA willing and able to make good-faith arguments and evidence them.

You know what, friends, this is an absolutely amazing space.

Look at the engagement on this thread - many of you are obviously professionals, highly informed of the complexities of this issue, lots of ideas, links, information.

And even when Robin drops in its informative.

Robin, don't you think that with proper organisation, a proper agenda, a clear purpose, that a reasonable and productive debate could happen?

There's obviously an appetite for it?

I've just quickly checked and I can't see how there are any insults directed at you today, let alone every second comment. Nor can I see any deleted posts.

I expect it's me. I can come across as a bit brusque sometimes. I don't think I made any insulting comments though. Not knowingly at least.

It’s really simple, discrimination on the basis of sex will be permitted. TRA = MRA

i really do not see why trans rights and same sex rights cannot run in parallel and why laws cannot be enforced to ensure noone is excluded from public life

They are often in direct conflict though because 'trans rights' means letting men into female only spaces etc.

No one is 'excluding' trans people from public life, they just need to come to terms with the fact that their self image doesn't alter their sex, so some areas will naturally be off limits.

Not up to women to budge over and make space for males with gender feelings, it's up to other men to accommodate them in male spaces.

Wow. So it's a feeling.

I understand that for many, their gender identity is hugely important. I would have thought reducing it to a feeling would be seen as patronising. Apparently not.

Still don't understand how that stands up in court!

Well you’d get nonsense like the below happening and no one willing to say anything because it might be against the law. As a Canadian I will say our government jumped on the bandwagon first and I’m sure will stay on it the longest 😒🤔

nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-defence-of-teacher-with-oversized-prosthetic-breasts-the-logical-conclusion-of-gender-ideology

I will add that the school board in the above case has already come out in support of the staff member and indicated even suggesting those prosthetics are an issue was contrary to the law.

Or this one - an 80 yr old woman had the policed called on her when she asked a trans women to leave the shower room at her local pool - this is real life - many laws have left it very very broad and entirely in the favour of men.

quillette.com/2022/08/12/podcast-195-meet-the-80-year-old-feminist-who-got-banned-from-the-ymca-for-protesting-male-bodies-in-the-womens-locker-room/

if you remain with your natal sex and gender identity aligned, or ‘do not have a gender identity’ as some would prefer to say, you are not protected under this Equality Act head.

I know RMW won't answer this, but is 'cis' therefore the same as being 'genderless' or 'agender'? You seem to have used the concepts interchangeably in this sentence.

(My usual caveat that I don't understand how a gender and a sex can 'align' as they are two different aspects of a person as far as I understand it).

Logically, if agender = cisgender, then both cis and trans people are under Stonewall's trans umbrella. I think it's wonderful that it's so inclusive, actually.