Drop trans guidance or face lawsuit, free speech group tells university

[Igneococcus]

I've not seen anything about this yet, apologies if there is a thread already:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/7870f1e3-ab47-41e4-be16-9ba93e3a6361?shareToken=b6f5913441f4ef1c13fdf55654b34f25

It really is awful guidance. Linking a thread I made about it two years ago.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4890373-truly-awful-tra-guidance-from-the-university-of-leicester-for-the-heritage-sector

wonderful women 🙌🏻

I've never seen the films so I hope this is appropriate.

Brilliant women.

The gesture is a good-bye to someone you don’t expect to see again but respect greatly.

So, nice but not the best fit then😁 Although I'll probably never meet them and I do respect them greatly.

But it ended up being a sign of rebellion

This is my industry. Very glad to see it being challenged.

Thanks for the link, my thanks to them for doing this.

"...We want our cultural spaces to be open, pluralistic, and lawful — not captured by ideology”."

This is the inclusion I can get behind, a type of inclusion that benefits all, I wish their action all the best, it's time those in the arts started fighting back. 👏

This is very welcome - not least as museums and galleries relying on public funding have a duty to provide educational resources to schools and children.

According to the campaigners, the university’s guidance “confuses legal definitions”, by treating the label “trans” as being synonymous with the legally protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”.

They also allege that the guidance is said to conflate the term trans with categories such as “non-binary,” “gender non-conforming,” and “gender fluid” — none of which are protected by law.

I don't think I have seen this argument before - that somebody who is non-binary does not have the PC of gender reassignment. My assumption would be that they do, but it would be interesting to see clarification.

I’d have thought it was obvious tbh.

I don’t think non binary has been such a big thing as it has become since the pandemic.

Clearly it’s been hitting gp surgeries based on another thread here recently; kids wanting some hormones to slightly masculinise them etc

The guidelines were written by the uni in 2023

The pc of gender reassignment involves working towards a change of “gender” from one to the other. Some “non binary” people may qualify ie “trans femme/trans masc ones. But not people who say they have no “gender” or are “multi gender”.

However, this distinction isn't made by LGBT advocacy organisations.

I think we now need official clarification of what the law means.

There’s a thread on a case going to the European Court with a non binary person seeking legal recognition via a GRC. The Uk courts said sex is binary and to get a GRC you need to choose one sex. So arguably the EA definition of working towards a change of gender doesn’t cover NB… And other cases confirmed there wasnt a third sex. Interesting legal question but back in reality there are only 2 sexes and they can’t be changed!

They deliberately seek to misrepresent the law. It was never meant to include people who identify as “non binary”. In 2016 the WESC “Trans Equality Inquiry” report recommended that the law be changed to include “non binary” gender identity. The government said no but that they could be protected if people discriminated against them because they thought they were transsexuals.

From the 2021 census question "to provide the first official data on the size of the transgender population in England and Wales".

A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within this group:

• 118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
• 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
• 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
• 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
• 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity

So if you assume that the 118,000 were confused by the question, a third of respondents have some kind of non-binary gender. If you include the 118,000, most trans people don't fall within the 2016 idea of a transsexual and don't identify as a man or a woman.

I don't think it helps anyone to pretend that trans means what transsexual did in 2004, or 2010 or 2016 but I do agree that laws need to be changed by parliament, not by general assumption or 'getting ahead of the law'. I expect this kind of examination would not be welcomed by advocacy organisations, but that doesn't mean it isn't essential if they genuinely want to protect trans rights.

I read these documents which really set out what's going on.
https://www.freedominthearts.com/fita-legal

The legal letter makes it clear what they are arguing:

• the guidence has a definition of 'trans' which is much broader than gender reassignment pc - including nb, gender fluid, gender non conforming. Then it treats 'trans' as synonymous with thd pc of gr.
• it ignores the possibility of conflict between this version if gebder reassignment and other pc's
• some of the advice and suggested policies would discriminate against women and ppl with religious or gender critical beliefs.
• it sets out why they think non binary does not fall within the pc of gender reassignment using recent case law. It is fws 1 and 2, the case of the non binary person Elan someone who wanted an X gender passport, and possibly this recent effort to get an nb grc.

It's worth reading it all.

I'm glad to see it. I worked in the sector many moons ago. I am glad freedom in the arts exists, and I think their position is stronger because they have helped people on 'the other side' of this debate too, putting freedom of expression first.

7Gender reassignment
(1)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.

Can a Non- Binary etc.

1. tick Yes to all the boxes □
2. fill in one circle ○

So an objective "Objective" test

" for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex " is not the objective of the NB / GNC / GF process (whatever that is) as the person is not seeking to be recognised in life/law as the other sex.

Sorry Merrymouse, misread the post.

But yes indeed,

Three out of one thousand is a tiny number, collected at time when trans ideology was probably at its highest point.

That is all true, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that 'gender reassignment' isn't now generally assumed to be the PC that protects trans rights, including people who are non-binary, of whom there is a growing number.

If I were them I would be wanting to seek clarification of what the law means, as FWS did, and if they felt it necessary then campaign for a change in legislation.

However, that all presupposes understanding of the equality law framework, and a belief that basic rights to education, work, housing etc. need to be protected.

Non binary gender identity is basically completely meaningless.

The “non binary” question has already gone to the Supreme Court re both passports and GRCs and it was rejected.

That isn't quite the same thing though. There is a difference between saying that a non-binary person can't have their gender recognised, and that they shouldn't have protection from job discrimination.