Government guidelines will follow Supreme Courty ruling when it comes to pay gap

[IwantToRetire]

Well, according to the Sun!

Bosses will be forced to use their staff’s biological sex when declaring their gender pay gap in a “common sense” victory.

Existing rules let firms interpret “male and female” as whatever the employee themselves identifies as.

The Sun can reveal that new guidance will soon be published that obeys last year’s landmark Supreme Court judgement that enshrines the rights of biology.

Around 10,000 large employers will be required by law to calculate the average gulf in pay between men and women.

The upcoming guidance states: “It is important for you to be sensitive to how an employee identifies their gender.

“The gender pay gap regulations do not define the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’.

Full article https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37936392/bosses-use-biological-sex-gender-pay-gap/

One of the reasons the previous government used for using section 35 to veto the Scottish Parliament's Gender Recognition Bill was the impact on reporting of the pay gap. Not the main reason I am sure, perhaps used so they could not be accused of transphobia.

Though of course if Boris Johnson and others were decent politicians and not just playing politics, they would have acted to make it clear long before the Scottish Parliament voted, and the Supreme Court judgment would not have been needed. So the guidance would have been issued perhaps seven or more years ago.

Someone in that department will tell the employer guidance is not legally binding🤣

Because if the unprofessional idiot who wrote/approved that blurb had read the Act they would have realised that

The gender pay gap regulations do not define the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’.

is 100% bullllshite as the words used are "male" and "female'

^ that is activisim and/or hire of idiots who dont understand the basics of how the law works.

It really isn't rubbish as all. There has never been a term 'sex pay gap'. It was simply '(un)equal pay' then GPG from the early 2000s.
Its entirely possible to fight back about how the term gender is being separated from sex now, without the need to reinvent history and tell other women they are incorrect about things within their own memory.

If an employee does not self-identify as either gender, you can exclude them from your calculations.

Under what section is that allowed?

Off to reread🤪

Are they not going to conduct an impact assessment first of following the ruling when it comes to pay - for the sake of consistency?

Of course not.....because this permits them to continue with the cognitive dissonance of holding two contradictory positions together at the same time. We all know what 'sex' is; we all know the difference between male and female - but they have to pretend they don't when it comes to female only facilities in which women are preocupied with their physical or biological function or else undressed. In these instances they have to pretend that males are actually female.

Shame on them.

I agree. Just as the term used to be transsexual not transgender. There's been a subversion of language, but the baseline was sex and gender being synonymous, generally on forms.

Employers doing it 'deliberately' to what ends though? If TIM showed a pattern of high earnings then I could see the value of including them with women to make employers appears to pay more equally. As it is, TIM are statistically likely to be lower earners so including them with women would drag down the earnings level and make the employer look worse. Far more beneficial to an employer trying to show a closing gap to include them with the men.
I completely agree that data needs to be collected on the basis on sex not gender, but think this is an odd example to put forward as a deliverate attempt to obscure that data.

Yes the two terms used to be used as synonyms. Gender Studies in academic departments in the 1980s and 1990s were simply Women’s Studies (generally the same textbooks, topics etc) and gender was taken to be the roles men and women are expected to play in society. Nothing to do with trans of any kind. These days of course would be very different and anything on gender would be almost certain to centre on trans stuff, because women can’t have anything for themselves.

The word 'gender' has now been terminally poisoned by activists.

Good to hear this. The demands of a tiny proportion of the population should not fuck up any meaningful recording or protection of the entire rest of the population.

Yes, exactly this. GIs did nor invent the word gender and instigate its use in place of sex. They appropriated the word gender, that was always used to mean sex, and gave it a new meaning. Which means we now have to stop using it to mean sex.