Equality Act training " gender reassignment is being referred to as gender identity

[twinklystar23]

A link for work for ongoing/upfating training was sent today. I just wanted to get opinions given this has just been sent. Also in the light of resistance by some to the SC ruling and whilst if it affords trans/non-binary people privacy and their rights it is still a change from "Gender reassignment" to "Gender identity" so given all thats gone before around the PC of "sex" i dont think we can afford to take our eye off the ball given all the previous years issues.

I looked up gender reassignment, on gov.uk which states
(1) A person has the protected characteristic of GR if the person is proposing to undergo or has undergone a process (or part of the process) for thr purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person wgo has the PC of gender reassignment
(3) in relation to a person who has a particular protected characteristic of gender reassignment
(a) is a reference to a transsexual person who has a particular PC is a reference to a transsexual person.
(B) a reference to persons who share a PC is a reference to transsexual persons.

The training information used stated:

"Gender reassignment" is the legal term used within the EA to refer to people who do not identify with with their sex assigned at birth. The term "gender identity" is more inclusive of all trans people including those who identify as non-binary and so throughout the rest of this document the term gender identity or trans identity will be used.

Thoughts?

If you feel brave I think it’s certainly worth pointing out to management that the terms don’t match the EA definition. They might be leaving themselves at risk of legal action if they don’t use the specific terms. Especially as there might be lots of people looking for trial cases to test the law - not worth them taking the risk?! Hopefully prompting action without you having to out yourself as GC?

They cannot just misquote the law; this is the same for all worklplace regulations ie health & safety and data protection. Imagine if you went on a course on lab safety and the trainer started randomly switching words around relating to ventilation and chemicals.

Send the organiser the link to the Eq Act and ask if there's a reason why they've amended the wording of an Act of Parliament.

I agree with @KnottyAuty - you say something along the lines of.... "I'm concerned that we are laying ourselves open to litigation if we don't abide strictly to the wording and intent of the Equality Act. Have we checked the our Employer's liability insurance will cover us if we are deemed to have acted unlawfully?. It's such a minefield ATM that we really need to be on the ball with this. GI is not the protected characteristic, Gender Reassignment is - and I'm pretty sure that they are not the same thing - happy to be proven wrong if you have already taken legal advice on this, but thought I should flag it."

The fantasy continues! These fanatics are utterly shameless. Yes we need to stay vigilant on cracking down on mission creep. Well done for spotting it. So much boundary pushing.

Send the EHRC interim guidance and anything relevant from Sex Matters. Maybe frame it as you being helpful and apprehensive about consequences of misinterpreting legislation?

And note that the courts ruled on NB is not covered by the EA
Someone who says they are NB may not be covered as there is no change (undergoing) in progress or finalised

Www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyve4m79e6lo.amp

So the org has added in a sub-group they should not have included.

Plus that slang terms or "local" speak are never a good idea
Eg preggers would not be an appropiate term to cover pregnancy
And basically most slang for disabilities.

I think yes all the above points are excellent. Though I may get a response like what difference would it make?

From reading the legal guidance it appears to be far nore about people who will be making or are about to make physiological changes to their sex. Some i would imagine would be feeling highly sensitised about this,. It coyld amount to creating an offensuve, hostile and degrading enviroment if such a person was using a third space /gender neutral toilet to be faced with someone whos gender identity has changed in the last 5mins. Similiar to the concerns women had to have fully intact males.
If someone had/proposed to undego a strip search the same concerns may apply?

@AnSolas thanks for the link useful to know non- binary is not a PC in the EA despite my training saying so!

Gender reassignment requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get a GRC not a belief in gender identity.

I may get a response like what difference would it make?

It would potentially be indirect discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to expand the class to include people who don’t actually have this PC, so the org is exposing itself to claims from those people.

It’s similar to how expanding the definition of women to include biological males will often indirectly discriminate against women because (among other things) they often self-exclude from women’s spaces if males are there.

For example, lots of genuinely transsexual people who fall under the PC of gender reassignment don’t believe in gender identity ideology and find it insulting to be lumped in the same category as people who identify with TikTok trans culture.

Similarly to how transwomen insist they are women and women know they’re not, many transsexual people would disagree with gender identity ideologues that their ‘transness’ is of the same type.

So you may have transsexual people who are actually covered by the PC of gender reassignment in the EA who don’t want to be associated with ‘gender identity’ as a category and who therefore might self-exclude from discussions of issues that affect them in the workplace. Those discussions then become overrun by TikTok trans people dictating what provisions trans people should have in the organisation (which might even be detrimental to those self-excluded trans people whom the org is legally obliged to accommodate), and the transsexual person can claim indirect discrimination as the org expanded the definition of transsexual beyond the PC that it should have been.

Also, people with the PC have a right to meet up away from all the gender woo people who don’t actually share the PC of gender reassignment, so the org needs to be clear on who does and doesn’t share the PC in order to adequately protect the people who do fall under the PC.

If they think that all the gender woo trans people are also covered by the PC (which could potentially be correct, in theory) they’re best off describing them by the term for people with that PC used in the EA, which is “transsexual”, so that it’s crystal clear how the org is following the law.

Sorry let me rephrase my opening line🙃

NB is not recognised

Someone can be NB and covered under the EA is they fall with in by "ticking the boxs"

A person has the protected characteristic of GR if the person is
□ proposing to undergo or
□ has undergone
○ a process (or part of the process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex
¤ by changing physiological or
¤ other attributes of sex.

So me
male NB not in the process of reassigning to female
cant tick either ¤
so fail ○
So my undergoing □ is to remain male

So me
male NB not in the process of reassigning to nonbinary ( if judge had recognised it)
cant tick either ¤
so fail ○
So my undergoing □ is to remain male (as NB is not recognised)

So me
male NB and in the process of reassigning to female
can tick either ¤ (now / in the future)
so can tick ○
So my undergoing □ is to be a legal female

Gender reassignment requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get a GRC not a belief in gender identity. (Justme56)

"Gender reassignment" under the EqA definition has a much more expansive definition and includes those without a diagnosis and without any intention to get a GRC.

The EHRC says: "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. You can be at any stage in the transition process, from proposing to reassign your sex, undergoing a process of reassignment, or having completed it. It does not matter whether or not you have applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate" - and whilst the EHRC's guidance on this issue is under review in light of the UKSC judgment, it doesn't seem like these definitions are liable to change (in my view).

It's also interesting to note that the EHRC does not stick rigidly to the language in the legislation, in fact eschewing the term "transsexual" (even though it appears in the law) and using the term "trans" (even though it may sometimes have a different definition): "The Equality Act 2010 uses the term ‘transsexual’ for individuals who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. We recognise that some people consider this term outdated, so we have used the term ‘trans’ to refer to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, we note that some people who identify as trans may not fall within the legal definition." (EHRC)

So, it might be difficult to dissuade others using the term "trans" as a shorthand for "having the PC of gender reassignment" given that the EHRC itself is currently doing so!

But using the term "gender identity" as a name for the PC would be very unwise because many people might consider themselves to have a gender identity that is equivalent to their sex observed at birth. (Many others would reject the concept of GI altogether, of course.) So, GI is a long way from being a synonym for GR. If gender identity were a PR then you could have an association of 25+ people joined together on the basis of a shared PC of gender identity, but you can't and it would be illegal to do so. You can, however, have them coming together on the basis of a shared PC of gender reassignment.

using the term "gender identity" as a name for the PC would be very unwise because many people might consider themselves to have a gender identity that is equivalent to their sex observed at birth

An excellent point to raise. Women with a female gender identity certainly aren't trans. Nor are men with a male gender identity.

And if you have a true-believer HR department, they can't counter it with 'only trans people have a GI' because one of the key TRA claims is that everyone has one but the difference for trans people is that theirs doesn't align with their sex.

Though I may get a response like what difference would it make?

Business culture :
• no idea if a law exists try blame the temp if we get caught
• know the law before breaking it
• know the law before balancing on the line without being unlawfull
• be seen to be squeeky clean and very proactive so if the rule is fuzzy staff must refer upwards

The HR controls fail if the law is not transcribed properly and understood which can lead to loss of management time and bad PR if a discrimination claim is made.

NhS Fife is in the ET partly because the A&E supervisor &co decided to run a trial (disciplinary) and find SP guilty without following the steps in Fifes policy or with fuck all documentation to prove they did and they can try to walk back what happened but the right to a fair trial is fundemental.
So we will see what the ET has to say about that.

So if Jo is a NB male undergoing nothing you can bully him by calling him a him not a they and he has no claim against the company under GR. He has a general claim for being bullied by you.

Your defence in your disciplinary and then ET 😉 is that you knew he was not "undergoing" but was a male being a male so you were only a "general" bully eg were not transphobic if thats under the trans policy but not listed in the bullying policy. 🙃

It coyld amount to creating an offensuve, hostile and degrading enviroment if such a person was using a third space /gender neutral toilet to be faced with someone whos gender identity has changed in the last 5mins.

Nope for the business 5min is the same as 70 years. Once the PC is in place the business can not allow staff to do a pick and mix on passability so 6f6' ZZTops Jo has the same PC as 5f1' tinkerbell lookalike

If someone had/proposed to undego a strip search the same concerns may apply?

Employers AFAIK have no lawful way of carrying out an employee stripserch (ex police and prison staff ?) You have to be in the lawful custody of the State

But Mo a TM seeking access to the female bathroom and arrested can per UK police policy be searched by :
• if she said I am a woman = TW or a woman
• if she said I am a man = man