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?

Absolutely. Stonewall was accepted as the authority on this, and the information and training they were giving replaced the protected characteristic of sex with gender, and the PC of gender reassignment with gender identity. People now argue that gender identity is essential gender reassignment so it doesn’t make any difference. But the original Act intended reassignment to be a meaningful transition including getting a gender reassignment certificate. It wasn’t intended to mean that anyone who says “I’m a woman now” actually is one, and it was believed that GR would only apply to a small number of people. Hansard confirms this.

It’s quite easy to pull the list of PCs off the government website, it’s in the text of the actual statute so nobody can argue that it doesn’t say what it says. It says sex and gender reassignment. What happens though is that people will tell you that sex means gender and GR means GI.

One clue that an organisation has been provided with their policies etc by Stonewall, Mermaids and the like, is when they say “Equalities Act” instead of Equality Act. This mistake appears everywhere when people say that GI and gender are PCs - the words have been lifted uncritically from the propaganda where the original mistake was made, by people who have never bothered to read the actual statute.

Just fantastic thank you. This really puts my fears into words, that they will take the letter of the law and then interpret it beyond recognition. I've had a previous interaction with the school about toilets and I know they will be prepared for my questions and likely to elide definitions (unisex toilets point in case).

I'll ask who provided the materials. I know the teachers are specifically trained in PSHE so I can ask who the service provider was. I'll keep an ear out for 'equalities act' .

Yes, generally I want to see that the whole topic of GI is couched in common sense and with evidence as they teach creationism in science and RE (I also want them to mention detransitioners if transition is taught which I'm not sure it is at KS3).

At the moment, all I know is they intend to spend a few hours on the various phobias, bringing in GI, assigned/ biological sex and 'accepted terminology' to teach about diversity and acceptance. I know no more than this. In principle, they could be teaching just as it should but as they were flying the pride flag at the school last year, I have a suspicion they won't. But I could be wrong.

In summary, I want to go prepared and not slip up from a simple gotcha like 'yeah but EQ'.

Just so you are aware, in case it’s thrown in there, by the time the hate crime regulations were brought in, the government had been Stonewalled. Therefore in the hate crime regulations, “transgender identity” is the characteristic.

In my profession’s social media rules, which were undoubtedly also Stonewalled, some of the listed characteristics are from the EQ (though they wrongly list gender in place of sex) while for trans protection, they miss out “gender reassignment” and remind us of the hate crime legislation so that they can insert “transgender identity”.

I don’t want you to get bogged down, and of course “gender identity” and “transgender identity” are different, but just be aware they are as slippery as a slug trail and if you are dealing with an outside provider, rather than the school itself (who are likely to be more ignorant than you now are) there might be pushback.

Apologies, I just read your update and see the school are also thoroughly captured and re-educated

As above: this has been an intentional political capture by providing training giving the law as the TQ+ lobby wished it to be, with the aim that once they'd successfully got everyone doing what they wanted (by misleading them and unfairly biasing them against other people's equality) that the law would then have to 'catch up' by changing it to the practice they had established.

Which tells you really everything you need to know about the morality and ethics of the political group we are dealing with.

Hi OP,

You've had lots of good advice already on this thread.

I think I would start by asking to see a copy of the lesson plan and the "accepted definitions" they are using.

You could say you've heard some concerning things about how this subject is being taught in other schools and you want to understand in advance what they are proposing to teach your son because you need to know whether it conflicts with what you have taught him at home about gender identity.

I wouldn't go in all guns blazing at first. Present it as wanting information and see what comes back. If they give you the information you're looking for and you find it problematic, you can cross that bridge when you come to it. If they won't give you that information then I would start making loud noises about safeguarding and mentioning the Cass Review, the many scandals involving Mermaids and the fact that Stonewall are known to have delivered legally and factually incorrect training to wide and varied audiences.

@BlooDeBloop a lot of good advice but please be aware that Maya Forstater’s EAT established that Gender Critical Beliefs are protected under the Religion and Belief protected characteristic. It is very likely that the Gender Identity (theory) belief is similarly covered under the Religion and Belief pc. In the same way not everyone has a religion, not everyone has a gender identity, but you can discriminate against someone who does have a GI.

This is completely separate to Sex and Gender Reassignment protected characteristics.

I've skimmed the thread so apologies if this point has been made already - belief in gender ideology and therefore "gender identity" ARE protected under the Equality Act, as established by Forstater vs CDG - my understanding is that for EQ purposes belief and lack of belief are both protected symmetrically, IYSWIM. However, it is protected as "religion or belief", and so the clearest analogies are with e.g. Christianity - i.e. you cannot discriminate against someone by treating them differently from someone who does not believe the same thing, not that you cannot "discriminate" against someone by not providing them with everything they ask for on the basis of said belief. As people have said, "gender" and "gender identity" are not separate protected characteristics, the relevant PCs are "sex" and "gender reassignment".

DfE guidance should be very useful given that everything has to be evidence-based, factual and not reinforce gender stereotypes. Also worth looking up separate DfE guidance about political impartiality in schools, which is statutory. (Google should bring it up easily.)

Good luck!

Yes I would have a strong suspicion that the information they provide will be biased. I would definitely try to get access to it before the lesson.

If they are teaching "diversity and acceptance", then maybe one angle would be that they should be teaching acceptance of those with GC viewpoints. After all, they can be discriminated against and are frequent victims of very abusive speech and even sometimes physical violence.

But anyway there is a legal duty on schools that they have to be politically neutral about many things:

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/17/political-impartiality-guidance-for-schools-what-you-need-to-know/

So presumably you can just say you are worried that the material will not be impartial and ask to see it for that reason. If anything they teach looks like left-wing activism then you should be telling them that they are breaking the law.

Following...this has come up in some ill-informed guidance we've been issued with (which fortunately also comes with a 'this is voluntary' caveat)

What does 'protected' mean in this context? You cannot discriminate someone based on protected characteristics?

In which case gender identity is pretty useless to be protected, because say when you want to exclude transwomen on something, it isn't because of their identity, but because of their sex.