Non-binary customers win compensation for being asked if they are male or female

[IwantToRetire]

Financial services firms have been forced to pay hundreds of pounds in compensation to non-binary customers over “discriminatory” application forms.

MoneySuperMarket (MSM), the comparison website, and Transunion, a credit union, were hit with separate complaints because their application forms did not include options for non-binary customers in their gender section.

Both cases were escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which awarded the complainants compensation for “distress and disappointment” incurred from the forms.

MSM was ordered to pay £200 to unnamed non-binary customer Mx B who was asked if they were male or female.

The company’s website did acknowledge the omission in an explanatory note and asked non-binary customers to refer to their sex at birth when asking for quotes, the complaint read.

Full article (originally from the Telegraph) at https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/non-binary-customers-win-compensation-for-being-asked-if-they-are-male-or-female/ar-AA1rHO3M

Sex is important in some financial areas. It's a reasonable question. If you are that focused on yourself you cannot tick a box there is something wrong with you.

Giggorata · Today 08:22

How the fuck do you pronounce Mx?

Mucks, as in mucks about.

Pathetic 🙄🙄

'. I would hope and expect to see MSM [MoneySuperMarket] recognising the potential impact on customers of not allowing them to identify in accordance with their authentic gender..'

'Authentic gender' - sounds sooo 2023, doesn't it? The potential impact of allowing people to identify in accordance with ill-defined anythings is beginning to sink in in 2024, fortunately.

The award was £200 for distress caused. I don't know what the range of compensation is, but despite the wording of the decision, £200-worth of distress sounds like an everyday occurrence in real life, like somebody blocking a box junction when you have an important appointment to get to, or Customer Support continually repeating the same sentence no matter what different facts you present them with😡

I just signed up for a bank card. They asked me my gender - had to choose from a list, Male, Female, Non-binary. Wonder how much compensation I could get for that since I don't have a gender and found the question incredibly triggering and upsetting, in fact I'm having to lie on the sofa sobbing for the rest of the week till I get over it.

Someone at my local coffeeshop told me to 'have a nice day, ma'am'. What should I do? I felt great anguish at this remark, particularly after looking at my bank account whilst planning for Christmas.

'Authentic gender'

Presumably as opposed to a fake gender ?

Has anyone tried putting one down. and then changing it the next day. And the day after that and so on ?

GDPR places an onus on companies to keep their records accurate and up to date, so any outfit that takes too long to update things is running the risk of a hard stare from the ICO.

Let us know your crowdfunder deets. It's literal gc-enocide.

'the potential impact on customers of not allowing them to identify in accordance with their authentic gender..'

They weren't even prevented from identifying as their so-called 'authentic gender'. Their 'authentic gender' just wasn't relevant.

ReadWithScepticism · Today 12:05

Why should a form ask irrelevant questions just in order to give a person the opportunity to assert some aspect of themselves that happens to be of importance to them?

Like cars with an ichthys on the back bumper, declaring their Christianity. For many, it seems to mean, "I'm driving like Schumacher, because God is my co-pilot."

Actually, on reflection, that DOES seem to be relevant information...

In response to various points.

Forms didn't stop using the word sex for prudish reasons, but was part of the TRA campaigning to get people to start using the word gender rather than sex, becaus of trying to obscure the fact that they are different. If people got used to having the word gender for what should be sex, then in the long run it made it seem that the words are interchangeable. (That's why it has now become imperative to have the word sex in the EA defined as being biological!)

re being asked your legal sex (or was it gender?) that's a result of the various court cases etc., that made it obvious that there are now 2 types of sex. Actual biological sex, and legal sex through gaining a GRC. So another manipulation of facts to pander to trans sensibilities.

re insurance etc., not being allowed to discriminate on gender (which as most of us and the world dont have genders surely only applies to trans believers?!) insurance companies are still charging young men more for car insurance than young women.

"While the EU's move was intended to narrow the gender gap in car insurance, it ended up widening it." https://www.passmefast.co.uk/resources/driving-advice-and-safety/car-insurance/gender-gap-car-insurance Which only goes to show that deep down everyone knows that sex is a reality, and because of the sexist society we live in they can make all sorts of assumptions about someone's sex because many people still live their lives based on sexist stereotypes.

I still cant understand how it was justified to say insurance policies couldn't be influenced by the sex of the customer when there are statistics to show younger men have more accidents. Seems crazy to not allow using sex as a factor, when they can use age.

Totally agree with the idea of a class action against just about everybody who denies my reality by asking me for my gender.

Maybe Sex Matters could set up a campaign or something and ask for compensation for the distress caused. https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2023/class-actions-in-england-and-wales-a-client-guide

I wonder how the stuntwoman did that.

One employment tribunal outcome said that non-binary is protected under gender reassignment, which is not precedent, but is likely to be followed in future cases.

I used to be a medical underwriter and sex at birth is a huge part of the insurance underwriting process. The costs take high mortality in younger men into account, various cancers and the fact that women live longer.

This is utter madness.

Lets wait until they prove black is white and get killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

The EHRC which has currently got a consultation out on their revised code of practice do say NB can come under GR legislation (likely following the Landrover case) as shown below. However, from what they have written it suggests that NB/Genderfluid (& even cross dressers) are covered under GR discrimination claims if the aim of the individual is to reassign their sex (at some point) MtF etc. This opens up more questions than answers as it suggests these identities are part of a process or journey (which they could or couldn’t be). Obviously in all these cases the individual hasn’t legally changed their sex.

The EHRC which has currently got a consultation out on their revised code of practice do say NB can come under GR legislation (likely following the Landrover case) as shown below.

How about people who are non binary just for the weekends ? Or Glastonbury ? Or maybe non binary in the morning, but definitely feminine in the afternoon. Between 13:00 and 18:00 ?

... are covered under GR discrimination claims if the aim of the individual is to reassign their sex (at some point) MtF etc ...

I haven't checked the actual wording but under protected characteristics if someone is in the process of working towards a GRC they are covered.

There is no reference to gender fluid etc..

The protected characteristic if Gender Reassignment, meaning having obtained or in the process of obtaining a certificate.

Although lets face it once Labour starts ammending it, who knows what the wording will be changed to.

Fab, can I sue and get £200. I mean I’m not non binary but obviously could just say I am 🙈

Nah, I benefit because I take my permanently hungry teens and pay the same price for all of us as your egg on toast 😁

Another recent case like this ... https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5188293-man-who-calls-himself-non-binary-wins-compensation-because-insurance-company-didnt-agree-to-address-him-as-mx

(Thanks @JanesLittleGirl for pointing me to this earlier thread!)

I wonder why that was legal? Non-binary is not a protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

How interesting if someone could sue insurance underwriters for discrimination for not accepting “non-binary” on a policy;

If forms have to accept non-binary as descriptor, that means they aren’t allowed to know someone’s actual sex.