Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

Did you go into single sex changing rooms?

did you enter the same space more than once?

you will have caused people like me trauma. I have panic attacks and meltdowns due to cptsd you’re ok with that?

Ah, good quibble. Not your fault you caused others to break the law. Except I have a feeling that it might be, actually; causing others to break the law is legally a bit dodgy, I seem to remember.

Could be incitement under the 2007 act. Only it is no longer called incitement; it is now "intentionally encouraging or assisting crime and encouraging or assisting crime believing that an offence, or one or more offences, will be committed"

I’m not okay with that. It’s why I stopped using those spaces after the FWS judgement

But the FWS judgement didn’t change the law?

and if you cared about womens trauma, thr FWS judgment didn’t change that either?

But toy, her being traumatised by men being in her safe spaces was happening before you decided not to do it any more.

I view it more as beliefs / religion than in nature.

It didn’t technically change the law, but up until that point everyone including the government and EHRC thought it meant the opposite.

The judgement is what made me read more into this issue and that’s when I realised I shouldn’t use those spaces.

You were wrong though.

and you’ve ignored my point about trauma.

I understand I was wrong. what do you want me to do about it now?

I’m sorry you have trauma and I hope I never triggered anyone, but I can’t know that for sure.

You were lied to.

It is a fact (admitted by Stonewall's Ruth Hunt herself) that Stonewall under her did not consider itself a democratic organisation. It is also a fact that it deliberately chose to 'get ahead of the law' by "training" people, workplaces etc all over the country, that the law governing women's rights and spaces had changed when it hadn't.

Gender reassignment protected status can't be made contingent on medical treatment, any more than the issuance of a GRC can, because that would be an Article 3 violation.

I'm arguing to keep the protected characteristic, mostly for pragmatic reasons. But we need to keep quashing the lie, that it is anti-trans discrimination to treat someone in accordance with their sex, in situations where sex matters scientifically, legally, medically, or for safeguarding, or to refuse to give someone an unethical medical treatment just because they demand it.

If we take the two extreme cases, of a medically transitioned completely passing male transsexual who is not out, and a privately gender-questioning man who has taken no further action yet, the following might be discriminatory even though not targeted at them:

An openly hostile and mocking workplace culture towards transgender people.

Single-sex multi-user facilities only, incorporating disabled provision within them.

A sexed dress code based on birth sex.

(Of course, 'not out' guy probably doesn't pass, and might be treated less favourably on that account, which would be tricky to detect: my own experience of going shopping with a transwoman friend is that he receives the most obsequious customer service I have ever seen in my life.)

If you replace the descriptions to pregnancy, pregnant, childbirth, you’ll find the same predicament exists. The same if you replace with Gay, lesbian, bisexual.

There is little contest thay those characteristics should not be discriminated against.

Whether it’s disclosed or discovered, if a decision is made that is detrimental solely on that information, it’s discrimination.

The key issue with the GR is the broad nature of it, and it enables self id, no diagnosis. However this only solves for discrimination, again it is the GRC that created a legal setting for ‘legal sex’ being different to birth sex and, societal chaos ensued.

if you actively want to discriminate against people with ‘gender dysphoria diagnosed or otherwise’ the impact is worst for those most vulnerable. Which isn’t the men.

Well, not everyone.

Good point. It wasn’t everyone, but at the time you were definitely in the minority.

Mostly blend in meant I wasn’t sure early in my transition. I have no doubts now.

@toyl9876 Reading what you have said in this thread, which is not entirely consistent, am I right in thinking that your OP might be more accurately stated as:

"I believe the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment should be restricted to people who have (or have had) a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria aka transsexualism and intend to undergo or have intended to undergo or have undergone chemical and/or surgical cosmetic alterations to their physiology and/or anatomy in order to mimic the secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. Do you agree?"

Is that accurate? If not, please could you explain what exactly it is that you propose because it does not seem to be maintenance of the status quo, which is what is implied by the OP?

That would make it a lot easier for people to engage with the arguments you are making, which are clearly not simply to retain the PC of GR as it stands.

Bearing in mind that:

• the PC of Gender Reassignment applies to children
• the "process" of acquiring a GRC can start at age 16 in terms of evidence of "living in the other gender"
• the ECtHR (which you rely on in the thread about Repealing the GRA) has made rulings in specific cases that it was unreasonable for those states to require medicalisation in order for the applicant to acquire recognition of some sort of "gender reassignment", "trans status", "sex change", etc.

By the way, I have voted "No" to your OP. For all the reasons given by PP plus that the existence of the PC of GR enshrines in law the dangerous absurdity that there can be such a thing as a "trans child".

That’s accurate to what I believe. It’s evolved as the thread has developed, but yes I believe protection should be for transsexuals who medically transition

That’s accurate to what I believe. It’s evolved as the thread has developed, but yes I believe protection should be for transsexuals who medically transition

Setting aside that it is impossible to "medically transition" from one sex to another, are you saying that you now believe that the PC of GR should not apply to people who merely express an intention to undergo chemical and/or surgical "sex-mimicry" or "sex falsification" procedures at some point in the future?

That is, that it is only on completion of those procedures that the PC of GR should apply.

In which case, what procedures would you mandate in law should be completed by a) males and b) females?

I do not agree that this standard is relevant BTW because I do not believe that the PC of GR is either necessary or benign. However, I am interested in clarifying what your views are.

Let’s not start pretending medical transition has no effect.

I think it should cover someone if they are planning to see a doctor to medically transition. This is to prevent someone from being fired just because they say that are going to transition. I think the criteria should be people with gender dysphoria who are planning to/are on a medical pathway. For most transsexual people I think this would be hormones

So it wouldn’t be applied to people with Gender Dysphoria who opt for psychological and therapeutic clinics to ease their distress without medical transition?

If only ‘planning to’ - which isn’t standardised enough to govern - wouldn’t you actually just require a verified clinical diagnosis as the qualifier, because treatment options are variable?

non-binary falls under this protected characteristic. What hormones are people without a distinct gender supposed to take to medically transition?

Non-binary actually doesn’t come under gender reassignment protection by default. I think that was found in the Land Rover case. They are only covered if they propose or do change aspects of sex characteristics I.e medical transition

The gender reassignment PC is a mess, and the GRA itself is a bigger one. And surely, some of the suggestions on this thread would be a big improvement on what we have. Doesn't seem likely, though, looking at the calibre of our pols, both current and future.

Let’s not start pretending medical transition has no effect.

Having clarified that your definition of "medical transition" is chemical manipulation of secondary sex characteristics using "hormones", what is the "effect" - in terms of qualifying for being covered by the PC of GR?

I think it should cover someone if they are planning to see a doctor to medically transition.

"Planning" is a bit vague. Do you mean that they have made an appointment to see a doctor to ask for a prescription for hormones?

I think the criteria should be people with gender dysphoria who are planning to/are on a medical pathway.

So not people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria but who are not planning to take a "medical pathway".

As StraightTalkingTina points out:

"So it wouldn’t be applied to people with Gender Dysphoria who opt for psychological and therapeutic clinics to ease their distress without medical transition?"

Do you think it would be fair for someone who wishes to take a medical pathway to be covered by the PC of GR and to have time off work to attend medical appointments but for there to be no protection and no "special leave" for someone who thinks that the best course of action for them would be to undertake psychological therapy or counselling?

I said it would be hormones for most, but I don’t see why a medical pathway couldn’t include psychological help. I think ‘planning’ is just vague enough, it covers people who say they are going to transition from discrimination. To bring a claim they would still have to prove they were being genuine for the protection to apply.