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

Assumption is the problem

The law said nothing about NB.

So why write policy which uses the words NB or GNC or GF.
That is a choice of the staff involved.

Part of the problem is the idea of "being inclusive of.... " and working in a regulated industry where the regulation has not yet rolled down to the staff level.

If GR = obligations and consequence the staff would want to limit the number of people within the PC and/or use very clear language to establish where their duty starts and stops. And as you say they would seek legal advice.

The questions asked would be based on the Equality Acts own terms.

And NB etc would be managed under "is proposing to undergo" but its again issue of benchmarking the appropiate group. If the staff are not sure the benchmark should be all of non-PC group create the control. Problems began when the benchmark was set as of the other sex.

The Courts said that there are 2 groups and each benchmark for controls is set as of the same sex.

And as you say a presupposes understanding of the equality law framework etc

Take this gem...
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5386944-i-need-help-taking-a-complaint-further?page=1

On your question about why the Council ask questions about ......., and why it is relevant, as part of the Public Sector Equality Duty, The City of Wolverhampton Council has a responsibility to ensure that we do not unfairly discriminate in the services we currently provide, or plan to provide.

Therefore, by asking equality monitoring questions as part of our consultations, we can break down the responses we receive and assess whether any protected characteristics will be unfairly treated because of the proposal being consulted on and plan suitable adjustments accordingly.

The Equality Act 2010 recognises ....

On your question on why the Council does not ask questions about pregnancy or maternity, the council aligns our equality monitoring questions with the Census 2021, where the only question relating to maternity was an employment-based question which wouldn’t be relevant for the Council to ask as we do not gather data on employment as part of our equality monitoring questions on consultations.

Everyone should have protection from job discrimination. I’m not sure why people who identify as “non binary” should have it more than any other cultural subgroup like “goths” for example.

I would be very careful about enshrining something as incoherent and flimsy and subjective as “non binary” in equality legislation.

It kinda, sorta, is🤨

Like a disability / pregnancy the job has to accomadate but first they have to know and there is a point where the GR clashes with other PC eg sex belief.
So the first issue is has person X the PC of GR if X has stated no propoposed /ongoing process no protection applies.

Kind of like what someone once said to me was ID into as many PC as possible and HR will manage you with a bargepole

They don't want to protect trans rights they want to remove women's rights. That's why there is such a tantrum - women have told men to get lost and the SC has dared to back the women.

I think it’s Stonewall Law if I remember rightly?

The case was Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd in 2020 (gosh that was a lifetime ago) and the Tribunal indeed held that non binary claimants have the PC of GR on the basis that “It was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum... it was beyond any doubt that somebody in the situation of the Claimant was (and is) protected by the legislation because they are on that spectrum and they are on a journey which will not be the same in any two cases.”

However it was a first tier tribunal decision and therefore not a binding precedent. A point which was lost in all the Stonewall coverage. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/non-binary/gender-fluid-claimants/5105968.article

He was also a bog standard MTF on a “transition journey” rather than “agender” or whatever.

Yep from memory he wanted to be seen as female by accessing spaces eg toilets and changing his employment records so the argument would be focused on the end point which was to be "managed/registered" as a female/woman.

If non-binary gender isn't a thing, than how can it be a category requiring job protection?

I think it's important to keep our eye on why certain catagories for protection are mentioned, when other things people might be discriminated for on the job are not mentioned, even when it might be unfair of the employer.

I can't see why some vague non-thing like "non-binary" should be there.