Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

Should gender reassignment be a protected characteristic? If no, why?

what do you think and why are you asking?

What is your motive for asking this question?

I’m curious what the people here think. A lot of GC people would say they have no problem with transgender people, trans people can wear what they want, etc. So I’m wondering if now that sex in the equality act has been clarified, you think gender reassignment protection should remain.

What do you think?

I think transgender people should have gender reassignment protection in the Equality Act. I’ve seen in suggested in other threads that is should be removed so I want to understand why some people think it shouldn’t be a protected characteristic.

the definition of gender reassignment needs to be tightened up - atm it covers ppl just having vague thoughts about transitioning.

I would like to see a better definition of "gender reassignment " if it is to be kept as a protected characteristic. This definition should make it crystal clear under the law who should, and who should not, benefit from this. It's too much of a free for all right now.

Is it a feeling, a belief, surgery-dependent, what age can you acquire the protection of this characteristic (there's something new in the guidance which mentions children from the age of two - why two? why not 18 months, why not seven? how can babies be "gender reassigned" except against their will? Some children at two aren't even verbal yet ).

I want a definition in law of "gender" and how one acquires one. If we can't define that, how do we "reassign" it?

Those are just my initial thoughts.

edited for spelling, of course

It should come under religion / belief instead.

I'd agree to that. As long as it is a personal belief that can't be forced on other people.

It needs to be clearer, treated more like religion than disability or sex. There should be protection though, in the equality act, as they are a group that face potential discrimination. Nobody is denying that, just that the protection isn't at the expense of women.

A man who announced he now identifies as a women shouldn't be treated differently to the day before he came out or any other man, and more importantly women who transition shouldn't lose any rights they have as women, such as maternity.

It needs to be crystal clear it isn't discrimination compared to the sex you identify as, it's the one you are.

Yes, also the weird bits about FtM and primogeniture would need to be sorted out. This clearly disadvantages (natal) women in favour of men.

However, section 16 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 applies an exception to this requirement in relation to peerages. As outlined in the explanatory notes accompanying the act, section 16 stipulates that “the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour will take place as if a person recognised in the acquired gender were still of the birth gender”. The same rule also applies to inheritance of any property that passes with the peerage or title, unless the will or other instrument governing the property expressly departs from this rule.
In written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the draft Gender Recognition Bill in 2003, Belinda Crowe, head of the gender recognition division at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, outlined the reasoning:
[…] by stating that where a peerage is concerned a transsexual person is considered in his or her birth gender we avoid anomalies of succession. Without clause 11, it is conceivable that, for example, a female-to-male transsexual could bypass the first-born son and inherit a title of honour.

From:
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/

But I still want a concrete definition in law of "gender."

What exactly IS 'gender reassignment'?

I'm not sure

The whole 'gender reassignment' label doesn't really work as a cohesive group.

It's meant to encompass anyone who is even considering playing with gender roles, even for a short while or part time.

I'm not sure everyone in the group believes in gender ideology either - I think some are fully aware of the reality of their sexed bodies and really struggle with this and have done for a long time.

Others don't believe at all but enjoy a privileged position by stating that they are part of the group - such as sports people trying to gain advantage or criminals looking to abuse women.

Then there are those who are true believers in gender ideology but only as activists/supporters/allies to others.

Sometimes individuals in this group have this PC, sometimes it's belief, sometimes its sexuality (AGPs). It could be more than one.

So, I can't decide what would work best.

OP, so far, I don't think I've read here that no one wants to just remove it as a protected characteristic. What we'd really like is a better definition of what it actually means and how it should be applied under the law. Perhaps you'd like to respond to some of our posts? Or did you just want the screenshots?

Nebulous characteristics probably make for bad law; just a guess, but if something can't be defined how can it be legally protected?

I think it should but be more defined. If someone has surgery, say to remove genitalia or breasts, I think that should definitely be included in the scope of the protection under law.

You tell me what it actually means and then I can tell you whether I think it should be a PC. Don't forget, it doesn't include non-binary or gender fluid people. Do you think that is fair?

I don’t think it should ever have become a protected characteristic, any more than being a goth or a punk should be a protected characteristic.

It is a meaningless category given how widely it is drafted, and what even is a “gender” in order to have it reassigned? It also conflates sex and gender.

Apart from religion/belief, the other PCs are immutable characteristics that cannot be changed by the individual - sex, race, age etc.

I also think (and I think this what you are thinking of when you say people are calling for it) that the GRA should be repealed. same sex marriage is now legal, and it simply shouldn’t be possible to falsify official documents to obscure your birth sex.

Can I ask why? If healthy person wanted to amputate a limb, we wouldn’t create a protected characteristic for them.

We should be discouraging “gender affirming” surgery - and certainly it should not be available on the NHS - mentally well people don’t want to lop off healthy body parts!

Ultimately I'd like to see a rejection of the concept of a 'gender identity' altogether.

I don't accept even the existence of a separate category of people known as' trans' people. We are all either male or female no matter how we feel or imagine ourselves to be; no matter what our preferences or tastes are; no matter our choice of clothing or hairstyle.

People imagine themsleves in all sorts of ways and identify with all sorts of things - but we don't have an entirely separate category for each of these particular 'identities' or feelings about ourselves.

Public life is not all about feelings or our personal self image. There exists a common reality that we all inhabit regardless of our feelings......and society is organised around these common reality facts.

Why? On what basis?

Should anyone who has had cosemtic surgery be given a similar protected status?

No. It’s a bizarre law based on a legal fiction that seeks to serve no purpose.

What is the certificate for? What is it supposed to show or to make happen?

But first of all 'gender' needs to have a clear explanation and meaning that everyone can understand. To my mind it is based on nothing but feelings.

Yes. But it needs to be better defined and it needs to be separate characteristic clearly different from sex.