TNBI job ad for Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support

[Keenovay]

James Esses has highlighted this job ad for Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support on Twitter.

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1972203042138476904

Trans, Non-binary, Intersex & Gender Variant (TNBI) Group Lead Facilitator
This post is subject to an enhanced DBS check and open to trans, non-binary, intersex or gender variant individuals only (exempt under the Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9, Part 1).
https://www.sarsas.org.uk/opportunities/trans-non-binary-intersex-gender-variant-tnbi-group-lead-facilitator/

He says it's discriminatory, and he may have sound legal reasons. In the comments, @RadicalRoo says, "While "gender reassignment" is a protected characteristic, it may not be applicable if a group also includes the more disparate "non-binary" and "intersex" people (people with a medical condition)."

Interested to hear what others think. On the surface of it, I support their right to advertise for a facilitator appropriate to this group. It's surely right TNBI clients should be able to have a TNBI counsellor rather than be asked to "reframe their trauma". And right that they can request a TNBI counsellor without accusations of bigotry. The outrage is that Edinburgh Rape Crisis and Brighton's Rape Crisis Centre Survivors' Network didn't grant women the same privilege until they were forced to.

I am not sure why this is even being asked.

Even those within the funded charity sector knows this is totally wrong application of the Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9, Part 1.

And was wrong long before the Supreme Court ruling.

And groups such as the WRC have posted information about this. Cant be bothered to find link but did post it as a thread topic a while ago.

But suspect as it is within the Bristol orbit that they have decided to ignore the advice. And if they are getting local funding doubt that the Council will do anything.

They are just being really stupid. Or obstinate.

If anyone can be bothered, you could contact Rape Crisis (the federation) and point out it doesn't help their credibility to have a listed support group acting illegally.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/find-a-centre/?centreq=Somerset&lat=&lng=&placeid=

Also dont understand why some stray male is posting about this on Twix.

Or if he is genuinely interested who could just monitor all voluntary and charity sector groups and provide a list each day.

He will find there are many.

Talk about groundhog day.

James Esses isn't just any stray male, to be fair. He was expelled from a psychotherapy course for gender critical views and received a settlement from the institution. He posts regularly on the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/15/student-psychotherapist-wins-apology-over-expulsion-for-gender-critical-views

I personally think it is worth shining a light on individual organisations breaking the law, even if it does feel a bit Groundhog Day; also to track reverse ferreting. I posted because I wasn't 100% sure whether James was correct in saying it was unlawful, so am grateful for the detailed responses on the thread.

Agree - but was having a bit of a ground hog day.

And certainly think if he has the time if he listed on his Twix account every time he sees an ad like that.

But this is make me think if only there was someway to compile, from the many threads about this on FWR, the relevant advice.

I tried to use AI search to do this, but it wasn't clear which threads were just discussion as opposed to which have actually facts / advice.

It's not unlawful, it's just incorrect They're free to require people to be trans or non-binary without invoking the Equality Act since doing so is not illegal discrimination.

They could equally well say they were invoking section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It's ignorant, silly, and shows a misunderstanding of the law, but none of those things are illegal.

The are saying "only" .
Its the same as saying we will only hire if you are over 18 and under 30 only.

There is no lawful reason to excluse a 40 year old from the job.

Because age is a protected characteristic. Being not-trans, not-non-binary, not-'intersex' and not-'gender diverse' are not protected characteristics, so the Act doesn't apply.

You could make an argument for this being discrimination in favour of candidates who believe in genderism, but that is justifiable as a genuine occupational requirement under Schedule 9. Although I'm sure that's not what the employer has in mind, given that they don't think of genderism as a belief system!

I don't think anyone here has the faintest problem with there being a trans employee available for trans clients, great. There should be a wide range of provisions with all needs being equally met.

The ad is very likely illegal based on the great explanations above.

The nice and generous view of well it's in a good cause so is it really necessary to make a fuss, just let it slide - sadly no, it can't. The time of good will and generosity, and being able to tolerate a bit of rule bending in a good cause is buggered, and it was the trans activists who buggered it. For it to work would require reciprocal generosity, tolerance of women only resources without them being gleefully and obsessively targeted by activists to capture them for men and wreck women's access, (and wanting to destroying it if unsuccessful as if they can't have it no one can, in the manner of a spoiled and spiteful child); and for the slightest of loopholes to not be a means by which trans activists and this political lobby force their captures and assaults on other people's rights.

The law now has to be rigidly stuck to.

Looks likely that this is absolutely illegal and discriminatory. I don’t think it’s comparable with allowing transwomen (men) into women’s rape crisis centres. The issue there is not that they are trans, but that they are men, and that can be deeply upsetting to women who have been attacked by men

That said, if the understanding is that trans and non-binary victims find it helps them to heal better when they are supported by members of that community, then that is obviously the best approach. Surely this is best managed by using a ‘preference will be given to those with experience of…’ clause

I’m really not sure how someone with a DSD fits into that!

Actually I think anyone could apply for this. If I went along (without changing a single thing about myself) and said I was non binary, what they going to do, say I'm not?

I agree the job advert shouldn't cite the EA
Also agree its a good thing- necessary even- for people to receive support from counsellors/therapists who have insight into their particular circs, maybe even sharing characteristics
We have always said we support 3rd spaces/services which would sit alongside single sex provision

I don't agree we should nit pick or somehow go after an organisation that is citing the EA incorrectly on the grounds that 'they did it first'

There isn't an undifferentiated 'they' and the excesses of transactivists shouldn't be used as a stick to beat organisations who are finally doing what we want.

They pulled the EA10 in by quoting it

This post is subject to an enhanced DBS check and open to trans, non-binary, intersex or gender variant individuals only (exempt under the Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9, Part 1).

The organisation can end up reorganising the hire process to employing the same person but the ad open them up to being sued.

Plus GI is not a recognised PC
Where GC has been recognised as a PC the courts have made a careful point in saying they are not "mirrored" belief/ two sides of the one coin.

They are perfectly allowed to say "only trans or non-binary". Just like they can say "only qualified accountants" or "only vegetarians" or "only blind people" or "only people scoring 70 or more on our aptitude test".

The rules are:
1 - You can have any requirements you like when hiring, except
2 - You can't require something that would discriminate against people with a protected characteristic (age, sex, race, etc.), except
3 - You can sometimes if it's a genuine occupational requirement and you satisfy some strict requirements

Hiring women only would break (2) so you need to demonstrate that you satisfy the requirements in (3) to be able to do it, i.e. there's a genuine requirement, it's a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, etc.

Hiring women or transwomen only would also break (2) but would not satisfy (3) so you can't do it.

Hiring non-binary only doesn't break (2) so whether or not (3) applies is irrelevant. It's fine regardless.

The job advert is ineptly written by mentioning (3) but it doesn't actually matter. What they're trying to do is entirely okay.

I think that in this instance its important that the group look at who they are trying to provide a service to.

Males or female?
Will that or should that change the sex of hire?

Sexual assault circumstance
Will that or should that change the sex or their attitude to sexual orientation of hire?

Etc

IOM where organisations have claimed that mixed sex groups are single sex it is better for every person who will use the service (more so for that specific element of the service) that the provider has actually worked out what they need and what would be nice to have in the idea hire.

Organisations who have a staff/service user conflict tend to be skewed towards stopping the "long term" problem which is backing the employee point of view. Which is why a service provider refused to provide any SSS.

The ad shows that either the board/HR dont understand the Act or that they do and choose to misuse the Act in a very dishonest way.

I think you're mixing up 2 things: the people the group supports, and the legal recruitment process.

Great, have a TNBI support group - i don't think anyone here would argue against that as long as women also have appropriate provision.

But however good the cause is, their recruitment process needs to operate within the law, same as everyone else.

Laws don't work when some special people are given dispensation (or more accurately just decide to) to break them.

If they don't like the law, lobby to change it.

Edit for typo

For people who think there's a problem here, note that the Equality Act is civil law, not criminal. In order for there to be an issue, there would need to be a victim who has suffered discrimination, or a hypothetical future victim.
Who would this person be and what claim would they have?

In the case of a job advertising for "women or transwomen only" this is clear - an otherwise-qualified man (who is not trans) is being disadvantaged because he is being disqualified on account of his sex, contrary to the Equality Act.

In the case of a job advertising for "women only" our hypothetical man would also be disadvantaged but - assuming there is a genuine occupational requirement - this is permitted discrimination.

If you can't identify a hypothetical person who would be able to bring a claim in this case - and I'm confident you won't be able to - then there can be no legally valid claim against the employer, despite their mangling of the law.