UK menopause law change rejected as it ‘could discriminate against men’

[IwantToRetire]

Proposals to change UK legislation to protect the rights of women experiencing menopause have been in part rejected by the government due to fears such a move would discriminate against men.

The cross-party women and equalities committee last July published a report focusing on menopause and the workplace, which included a recommendation to make menopause a “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act.

Protected characteristics are a specific set of characteristics that it is illegal to discriminate against, and include age, disability and race among others.

But in its official response to the report, published on Tuesday, the government rejected the proposal, warning of “unintended consequences which may inadvertently create new forms of discrimination, for example, discrimination risks towards men suffering from long-term medical conditions”.

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/24/menopause-law-equalities-act-uk-change-rejected

Personally I am not sure about making menopause a protected characteristic, but couldn't help but feel this seems to be another of those attempts to say the biological reality of women's bodies musn't be acknowledged. Or if they are then men must be allowed to claim something equivilant. Not forgetting that women also suffer from long term medical conditions. How deep is the Gveronment's understanding of women's issues?

Long term conditions are already covered in the Equality Act. For both sexes.

Only women experience menopause and every woman will. Not every woman will have a horrendous time, as with pregnancy, but some will. So they need support and protection. There’s no male equivalent so how are they disadvantaged?!

This is the government yet again showing that they do not respect women or want to help support them.

Men discriminated against for not getting in on something that doesn't apply to them... Wtf??

Because men's menopause is worse than women's, of course.

What total bullshit. It’s nearly as bad as when the ‘Government’ decided not to make misogyny a hate crime because they thought that would be worse for women somehow.

It’s almost like none of the political parites cares at all about women. Some politician individuals care, and passionately, but there’s never enough to get policies passed.

Men should be falling over themselves in gratitude for what women have to go through in order for them to be alive.

Ultimately not passing it has kept women of a certain age more employable.
Why choose a woman of 45 when they could take "menopause leave".

Yes I'm menopausal, yes I had a terrible few years around the change, but I also changed employer and had a hard enough time finding work in my 50s without this putting me to the bottom of yet another list.

This is very cheeky reporting IMO, enabled by a shameless, showboating committee chair.

The report is here and the issue is explained very well by the government on p18:

committees.parliament.uk/publications/33631/documents/183795/default/

I thought about this more. I didn't like the idea before but imagine what would happen if we could start merging protected characteristics?

Males with - as I've seen it called - "prison onset gender dysphoria" would merge sex with gender reassignment. It would be like a game of Top Trumps in which the usual groups lose: women, disabled adults and children, and children.

I think this is an exceptionally dangerous idea and I'm glad the government has rejected it.

I was pretty ambivalent about this. Like a pp I worry about it affecting women’s employability.

I do think all of the emphasis on how disabling periods and menopause can be for some women doesn’t do women as a whole any favours in the current man’s world

This is the argument (crap) employers and sexists make about pregnancy. All the more reason why we need legal rights.

With the sex, age and disability protected characteristics I believe there is enough protection.

I believe education about all women only medical conditions, including severe dysmenorrhea, should see appropriate adjustments in the workplace.

I dont think it should be a protected characteristic but do believe employers should be required to make accommodation for this, as they should for those who suffer problems whilst menstruating.

I must admit that I partly posted it because in two ways it is ironic or the usual double standards.

The response that this discriminates against men has lead Caroline Nokes to complain loudly that this is outrages. But this is the same Caroline Nokes who supports self id. Funny that she can recognise that women have specific biological differences to men, but still thinks men can be women.

And I think the Guardian was just doing this in a jokey way.

Have noticed because I only look at the Guardian about once a week, that their Women's section (seen to be part of Lifestyle) quite often doesn't have an new stories about women's issues even though one section is meant to be news.

It's a really dry and otherwise routine kind of report and I wonder if the men part was pointed out to reporters. It does make for a more spicy story!