In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex?CMP=share_btn_tw

That's my point. Even if it's clearly obvious that you are refusing to play the pronoun game is non compliance harassment ? Even if you don't deadname or misgender with wrong pronouns? Can you be compelled to use incongruent pronouns against your own beliefs?

All I can find is that the EHRC have removed their guideline on schools that said that misgendering was discriminatory.

Perhaps there will be clarification in due course.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/23/ehrc-guidance-trans-misgendering-pupils-schools/

'In the previous guidance, the EHRC stated it would be discriminatory – under the Equality Act’s protected characteristic of gender reassignment – to refer to a trans pupil using their deadname or former pronouns.

In the update, the EHRC removed this section entirely, suggesting that the watchdog no longer sees misgendering or deadnaming as discriminatory.'

Community note:
Certain posters (mentioning no names) display the quality of their thinking by the nature of their comments & occasionally reflected in their user names. Posters should be aware (as Mumsnet regularly remind us) that people may not be who they claim to be online.
Always worth looking for a persistent anti women bias, a disregard for safeguarding children & the rights of women to privacy from men, in the posts of those who rock up on this feminist women's board claiming levels of "expertise".

Have a wonderful women centred weekend wims and ignore the pigeons who descend in the hope of ruffling feathers. 😘😘

Children cannot get a GRC so will not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

It must be awful when reality bites you on the arse.

Children cannot get a GRC so will not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The protected characteristic is broader than that:

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would cover a child who was taking puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. Maybe a name change and a hairstyle would not be enough though.

I believe the government's lawyers were debating exactly that point and iirc decided children were able to be protected by gender reassignment characteristic. If that makes sense, I'm very tired!

The side with the sense of humour is the side to be.

They do have the protected characteristic, but the "protection" is simply the right not to be treated worse than someone who isn't undergoing gender reassignment.

This sort of discrimination is the sort of thing any reasonable person would be against:

• can't be chucked out of school because they say they're changing gender
• can't be segregated from the rest of the class because they say they're changing gender
• can't be bullied or ridiculed because they say they're changing gender

What they're not entitled to is to be considered the opposite sex from their actual sex in terms of single sex exemptions as they don't have a GRC (since under 18)

• can't insist on using the opposite sex's toilets or changing facilities
• can't insist on being housed in accommodation for the opposite sex on residentials

There's probably a huge grey area around uniform and other school rules on hair etc. Probably not reasonable for the school to insist on single sex rules for these.

Many people don’t "deliberately misgender" anyone, but they do both subconsciously, and on occasion deliberately, correctly sex people. If that turns out to be against the law, I for one am willing to defend myself in court for being honest and truthful.

Poorly drafted legislation doesn't help this mess, does it?

But don’t, whatever you do, consult Worknest! I hear they have some very poorly trained apprentices…

Thanks @ArabellaScott and others. Every day is a school day. You live, you learn!

It's such a nightmare when you accidentally use the "Gross Misconduct" letter template instead of the "I'm sorry we harassed you" one.

This.
Disability is protected but that doesn’t mean we have to hire a blind bus driver, put someone in a wheelchair in a regular rugby team or ban speech so deaf people don’t feel left out.

It’s protections plus reasonable adjustments but it’s not do what you want.

Ha! 😄 Where’s that “chef’s kiss” emoji when you need it.

Aye and it's such an easy mistake to make.

I'm just catching up.

Appalling piece of writing. Absolutely dreadful!

Well I'm screwed as I use that as an answer to just about everything in the real world! Unless it's cake related and then I invoke our dear own cakey username poster!

Is this a reverse ferret I see before me to say 'look we have never discriminated against staff members who have gender critical views'.

Placemarking to read later

The reality that people with religious and pseudo-religious beliefs need to be accommodated in the work environment to the extent that it doesn't impinge on the rights of others? I'm very familiar with that.