Is GI a protected characteristic?

[BlooDeBloop]

I just checked my son's secondary school PSHE curriculum and they will have a lesson on gender identity. The materials aren't available online but the notes say they are using the accepted definitions. Well, I don't accept GI exists. I think it is a controversial concept that is far from being accepted wisdom. I'm thinking of challenging it (as I would if the school were teaching creationism instead of evolution) but then the thought occurred to me, is GI protected in UK law? I'd be in a weak position if I'd argued it wasn't an accepted idea if it is in fact endorsed in law. A quick search gives me a yes, GI is protected but further reading suggests no. What is the MN take?

No it's not.

Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic
www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

Gender also isn't a protected characteristic

How come this is so widely misunderstood? If I go to the school and say GI is ideological and they say it's in the statute book, I'm going to be red faced even though I'll be right. I will have to argue hard as they no doubt will have received 'training' and be sure of themselves.

Gender ISN'T protected? You see, I thought I followed this closely yet I wasn't aware. I assumed gender was protected....

Sex is the protected characteristic not gender

Biological sex, actual official gender reassignment, and holding gender critical beliefs are protected

Self identification, gender, gender beliefs, self perceived gender etc, none of this is protected

@BlooDeBloop you need to look critically at your sources. A .gov source should be accurate but various info pages are just Joe Bloggs’ interpretation.

if you ever want to check look up the equality act 2010 and protected characteristics. Look on government websites, ACAS and legal sites not just generic google searches.

Right, thank you. I'll need a screen shot of the gov page on protected characteristics to hand. That should be enough to rebuff any 'accepted definition' bs.

Stonewall went round telling everyone that GI was a protected characteristic and in most organisations they just naively believed it.

What do you mean by 'actual official gender reassignment'?

The EA says:

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

It's vague enough to cover pretty much anyone who IDs as the opposite sex.

Importantly, while it protects someone from discrimination for being trans, it doesn't give them the right to be treated as the opposite sex.

It is the Equality Act (2010) which lays out what is protected in law. It does not include gender (but does include sex). It does not include gender identity (but does include gender reassignment). When you see people claiming that gender identity and gender are protected characteristics, they are misquoting or at least misrepresenting the law, though they might argue that they are just putting it into clearer English. Misrepresenting the law is either very careless or deliberate misleading.

Naturally the law is not quite completely cut and dried, as words have multiple meanings, so lawyer can argue about those meanings. Usually case law eventually sorts it out by clarifying what the law states.

The nine protected characteristics are:

Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

This is the digital equivalent of the statute book - legislation.gov.u (since government is now "digital by default")

And here is the relevant section from the beginning of the Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4#text%3Dprotected%20characteristics

"The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation."

OP, you can give/send the school the link above, or screenshot and print the page.

Groups like Stonewall have done a lot to muddy the waters, by using GI instead of GR.

In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex.

To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.

• from the EHRC website

My understanding is that a person with the PC of gender reassignment cannot be treated less favourably than any other member of the population generally and any other member of their sex class when it comes to single sex spaces.

It does NOT mean that the PC of GR allows unfettered access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

But if an individual has a Gender Recognition Certificate, they should be treated as a member of their new (false) sex class, although can still be excluded in certain circumstances - changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards etc.

Gender Identity has no legal definition.
Actually I don't think Gender has, either, but I may be wrong there.

Safe Schools Alliance has some excellent resources to help you talk to the school:

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/

You could start by requesting to see the materials they will be using.

Lovely resources, thank you. I feel equipped to go now with confidence to summarise the law.

In terms of the 'accepted definitions' - according to who? Who is defining GI? Another search reveals NSPCC for example explaining these terms as fact (worryingly they also advise parents and teachers to support gender questioning children with new pronouns and names etc). Other sources include Britannica and the BBC.

Nowhere is the idea that GI might not exist, that some people don't feel they have a GI (unless they are NB of course 🙄).

Is this it? Is GI and its definition accepted in the society we live in??

NSPCC, along with many others, have been institutionally captured and 'trained' on gender bollocks by Stonewall.

This is also from the Gov.website in regards to teaching 'gender' in PHSE lessons.
Note that it says they mustn't reinforce harmful stereotypes and that it must be age appropriate and EVIDENCE based.

We are aware that topics involving gender and biological sex can be complex and sensitive matters to navigate. You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. While teachers should not suggest to a child that their non-compliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support

SSA is a great resource thank you. I used the info on toilets to speak to the head of safeguarding. As a result they are going to scope out basins in the cubicles after I told him they weren't unisex unless they had them. Now I have a pdf on my phone.

So SSA think a good argument against teaching GI in schools is harmful stereotypes. I agree, and it is powerful especially in light of the PSHE agenda which is all about dismantling harmful stereotypes.

Does anyone have a handy link to a reputable source about how GI is an ideology and disputed at that? I want to undermine the 'accepted' notion.

It's a disgrace. There was a serious safeguarding breach in the primary school and they sought advice and teaching materials from the NSPCC...

I believe gender identity was a theory developed by Robert Stoller and obviously John Money had a big part to play in furthering the idea.

The Equality Act gives certain rights to certain groups in e.g. employment. It does not force anyone to otherwise act as if people's beliefs about themselves are actually true. So you can't sack someone for being a Catholic, but you don't have to pretend to agree with Catholic beliefs. Same for gender beliefs.

The school can probably legally teach gender ideology as fact if they want (just as Catholic schools are allowed to teach Catholic theology), but equally you'd be entirely entitled to dispute that.

You might like to look at Alex Byrne's What is Gender Identity?

Byrne is Professor of Philosophy at MIT. The above is an accessible but scholarly analysis of the concept of 'gender identity'; perhaps a little too measured for some tastes, but that may be useful for your purposes. Part of his conclusion you might like to quote:
"If there is some kind of “gender identity” that is universal in humans, and which causes dysphoria when mismatched with sex, it remains elusive. No one has yet found a way of detecting its presence, and verifying that it is causally responsible for dysphoria."

Byrne has a name mainly in other areas of philosophy but in this context he has published in more traditional journals too (and has a book about it on the way). Of course he has had the usual abuse from usual suspects. But this is fairly authoritative, and anyway will help you make the point that 'gender identity' is not simply accepted in the Stonewall sense in all academic milieux.

You want to dispute using the term "gender identity" or the concept of gender identity? Like you deny anyone has a gender identity in the first place?

Personally I would just want to insist that they make sure to tell the pupils that it's controversial that gender identity (1) really makes someone equivalent to the opposite sex, or (2) that people can claim "rights" on such a basis. Obviously you can teach that such and such is the law at the moment.

So they should probably be explaining the GC perspective. They have a duty to be politically neutral.

They shouldn't be teaching anything like TWAW as if it's a fact that everyone should go along with.