Gender Identity vs Health and Safety

[BringBackCoffeeCreams]

Does anyone know what the legal position is when gender identity collides with health and safety sex restrictions?

DH is currently doing diversity training and they're pushing the legal protections of gender identity hard but don't have an answer to what happens with regards to health and safety. He works in a sector with very strictly enforced regimes which are different for males and females.

He doesn't want to push for an answer as it's theoretical at the moment for him but I want to know.

Anyone know?

Well as gender identity doesn’t have any legal position, hes being misinformed. The legal position in the Equality Act is gender reassignment. Unfortunately, there’s some clash with other sex based laws.
If a trans identifying male wants to use single sex female changing rooms as part of the Healkth and Safety restrictions youre talking about, sex is the deciding factor, not gender identity. Id love to know what field he’s employed in!

Gender identity isn't a legally protected characteristic.
Genger reassignment is, but there are legal exemptions for single sex spaces etc.

For discrimination, the comparator for a male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is other men.

They must not ignore that sex is also a protected characteristic.

Sorry, I used the wrong terminology. I meant someone who has legally transitioned.

He's a nuclear worker and is responsible for monitoring the radiation exposure of his staff. The limits for men and women is different and he would be in very serious trouble if he allowed someone to continue working once they reached their limit. But which limit?

But I guess the same principle applies to other workplaces eg max lifting weight.

By legally transitioned you mean the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate? So is the individual being asked to have more radiation exposure because he is male as opposed to the female limit that is lower? Or is the employee asking to be judged by the female level? Either way it's a mess!

From what the OP says it's a theoretical question. So if a woman has legally transitioned to being a man, should that person be subjected to the (higher) radiation exposure limit for men? (Presumably it doesn't matter as much the other way around.)

I can't imagine that even the most lunatic trans activist would say that gender reassignment overrides biology in a case like this - however, I have thought that about many things and always been proved wrong.

I’m not sure how the diversity training is relevant. Is your DH the person who has to make the decision on exposure amounts?

This sounds like a job for Sex Matters.

sex-matters.org/

I posed a similar theoretical question at work. If a woman who identified as a man had sudden stomach cramps would it be okay to ask if they may be pregnant, thinking of ectopic pregnancies, I didn't get an answer!

I’m shocked you didn’t get an answer - who were you asking? In a clinical setting you absolutely can and should.

A sensible question, and it should have been answered sensibly. There’s already been at least one case in the news of a woman who miscarried, and could have suffered more serious health consequences, because she told emergency medics she was a man and they didn’t realise in time.

The amounts are set by law for males and females and everyone wears a thingy which detects their dose. When they reach the limit they're pulled out.

It's a theoretical question though because if everything is going as it should be nobody would ever reach their limits. But if something went wrong and limits were being reached, which would apply?

I work in retail, if I transitioned would my boss then be able to insist I carry heavier boxes than I'm currently allowed?

The amounts are set by law for males and females and everyone wears a thingy which detects their dose. When they reach the limit they're pulled out.

Seems very clear it would be based on their biological sex then - has someone told your DH something different? I assume this is just theoretical.

He needs to get the organisers to be crystal clear where they mean 'sex' and where they mean 'gender'. It is in everyone's benefit to make sure you use the correct term, and it is transphobic to conflate the two (because if sex and gender are treated as the same thing, you could not have trans people, so it denies their existence).

Reference for transman miscarrying, New England Journal of Medicine www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1811491

If the world was sensible then it would be easily navigated by wording such as:

Legal limit for female* employees is X
Legal limit for male* employees is Y

*For the purposes of this document female includes transmen and female non binary people
** For the purposes of the document male includes transwomen and male non binary people

But the world is not sensible.

I work in retail, if I transitioned would my boss then be able to insist I carry heavier boxes than I'm currently allowed?

No because the MH regs say individual factors should be taken into account.

That's good. So some areas have flexibility written into them.

I don't think it's actually true that there are different radiation dose limits for male and female workers. I believe there are lower limits for under 18 year olds, but I haven't seen anything that says men and women are subject to different limits. If OP's DH works in this field, he should know what he's talking about but I'd be interested to see a reference to the relevant regulations.

The limits for men and women is different and he would be in very serious trouble if he allowed someone to continue working once they reached their limit. But which limit?

Why are the limits different? Is it to do with pregnancy, or body size?

If it ever happens in practice I suspect the company would be wisest to stick with whichever limit is lower (the female one?) for any trans person.

Interesting. Maybe DH is just trolling me. I shall ask further questions when he gets home.

If someone gets subjected to excessive radiation because they're too pig-headed to acknowledge their sex, they deserve it as far as I'm concerned. Idiots.

That article is infuriating (as well as very sad). They claim the problem is that the patient did not fit into the binary categorisation of male and female, when clearly the problem was that the patient had medical records that were false and misleading - i.e., stating the patient was male when they were in fact female.

Yes I’m minded to agree but I can’t see it’s a genuine risk. That “someone” would always be female by the way.

interesting
I went for an x ray today and there was a notice (which I was struggling to read tbh) headed something like 'inclusive safety in medical imaging'
it stated that any person between the ages of I think 16 and 55 would be asked of they might be pregnant. It explained that this was because if a person was or might be pregnant this would affect their treatment.
Imagine being the poor person having to ask all the male patients if they are or might be pregnant.
As I fall outside the age range they didn't ask me.