Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

How, when you're not allowed to ask them?

Do you mean you’re not allowed to ask if someone has a GRC?

Yes, but given that's the case, I can't imagine intrusive questions re medication and doctors meetings would be acceptable (I'd be unhappy abut it for other meds too, tbh). The whole issue with this has been that it has been designed to take people at their word. And people who lie about their sex will lie about anything.

Your plan is basically unworkable.

Also, you dont get maternity protection just because you're thinking about getting pregnant, have had a doc's appointment and are taking folic acid.

So why should you if you've taken some hormones. And where does that leave the DIY people?

Completely unworkable.

Agree. And 'taking people at their word' is hardly a great template for legislation. You'd have thought.

Doesn’t the same go for religion/belief protection? You have to take someone at their word that they believe something

But you talked about proving they were being genuine. What would that look like?

Also, as far as I can see, religion is a belief, but many, if not most, trans people seem to think they actually are the other sex, so not a belief for them but a fact. So it can't be judged the same way.

I happen to disbelieve both but that's by the by.

But as far as I understand it, religion is the only one of the protected characteristics that currently works on taking people on what they say. So unless you recategorise transness as a religion, which I imagine would go down like lead balloon, it doesn't work.

Religion isn’t the only one. To some extent you also have to take someone at their word for sexual orientation. It’s the same for gender reassignment.

If anyone with those characteristics were to bring a claim they would have to prove they have the characteristic for it to be discrimination. It’s no different for transsexuals.

This is one of the myths spread by Stonewall.

There is no prohibition on a member of the public asking another member of the public if they have a GRC. Official guidance relates to "duty holders" under the Equalities Act 2010, eg. service providers, employers.

Transgender Equality Report
2015 - Women & Equalities Select Committee

73. It is not unlawful under the GRA to ask a person to produce a GRC,69 but it is in almost all circumstances unnecessary. There are very few situations in which it would be appropriate to ask for proof of legal gender. (see Chapter Six).

74. In those circumstances where it is necessary to prove legal gender, it is inappropriate to request production of a GRC, as it is the new birth certificate (issued after the granting of a GRC) that provides evidence of a person’s legally recognised gender. (A trans person whose birth was registered in the UK can actually destroy their GRC as soon as they receive it, if they wish.) The EHRC Statutory Code of Practice in respect of the Equality Act 2010 states:

Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition Certificate as evidence of their legal gender. Such a request would compromise a transsexual person’s right to privacy. If a service provider requires proof of a person’s legal gender, then their (new) birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.70

75. It may be necessary to produce a GRC in certain very rare instances in order to establish continuity with a former identity, for example:

• to claim an inheritance where a person is named in a will in their former identity; or
• where a person was not born in the UK, has been unable to obtain gender recognition in their birth-registration country and needs to demonstrate that they are the same person as that shown on their passport or visa, in order to demonstrate that they are able to work in the UK.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39006.htm

The EHRC Draft Code of Practice says:

13.181 It is important to be aware of legal provisions protecting privacy in the context of making such enquiries. Unless it is relevant for operational reasons, whether or not someone has a GRC is unlikely to be relevant information for the purposes of asking about either the protected characteristic of sex or the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, if, in the course of asking for such information or otherwise, a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association acquires information that someone has a GRC or has applied for a GRC, onward disclosure of either that information or their sex without consent may be a criminal offence in some circumstances (read section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026#exceptions-1

To bring a claim they would still have to prove they were being genuine for the protection to apply.

Previously you have argued about protection from unfair discrimination, ie. preventing unfair discrimination.

However, bringing a claim is not about preventing unfair discrimination, it is about making a claim for compensation because someone believes that they have already suffered unfair discrimination.

You have moved the goal posts, perhaps unintentionally.

To go back to the original issue about "planning". You say:

I think ‘planning’ is just vague enough, it covers people who say they are going to transition from discrimination.

However, you have said previously that you would mandate that the PC of GR should be restricted to people undergoing medical treatment:

"I think this protected characteristic should very specifically apply to transsexuals, meaning they have gender dysphoria and are undergoing medical treatment"

"Medical treatment indicates a level of seriousness of the gender dysphoria. If someone goes to that level before of their distress you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against them."

How do you square the above with your position now that "‘planning’ is just vague enough"?

You seem to be wildly inconsistent and unclear about what you actually think. For example:

HenriettaSwanLeavitt
"Do you think people who say they are 'trans' but don't intend to undergo any medical procedures should be protected under PC of GR?"

You replied:

• I don’t think they should be protected under gender reassignment protection. If you’re able to but don’t intent to medically transition they I have a hard time see how that is anything to do with being transsexual/gender reassignment.

• If there is no actual change in how someone lives their life I don’t think that should be protected.

Yet in reply to me you said:

"I don’t see why a medical pathway couldn’t include psychological help."

Another aspect of your inconsistency is that you profess to advocate for restricting the PC of GR in principle yet give practical examples that are solidly in line with the status quo.

Perhaps, rather than continuing to give inconsistent off the cuff replies to questions as they come up, it would be better if you went away and mapped out how your restricted version of the PC of GR would actually work in practice?

The way things are going, I think you are only succeeding in demonstrating that the way the PC of GR currently operates is incoherent and that your proposal to restrict its application needs a lot more thought.

Do you think it should be legal for someone to be fired because of gender reassignment? I don’t.

What if they were a male prison guard and their job was to strip search for example male inmates. But then out of the blue refused to strip search males as they were 'proposing to undertake something something who knows what that is to transition' they then wanted to strip search women?

What would you do with a man who refuses to do his job?

Interesting responses to that, guys. Huh.

Unfair Dismissal is unfair dismissal and is covered by Employment Law not the Equalities Act 2010.

There is no requirement to rely on a Protected Characteristic under the Equalities Act in order to submit an appeal to an Employment Tribunal against unfair dismissal:

www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructive-dismissal

Hmm, but someone does not have to prove they have a characteristic to bring a case for discrimination on the basis of it. It's enough that the person discriminating thought they had the characteristic and discriminated because of that.

This is how the Supreme Court agreed TW are still protected if someone mistakenly thinks they're women and refuses them a job because they might get pregnant.

Does that widen the class of who is protected against gender reassignment discrimination? If someone says they are trans a third party may reasonably /think/ they're planning to transition even if they're not. And how about that to say NB people also can't be sacked for declaring themselves NB, if NB is deemed to be associated with gender reassignment even if it's not exactly qualifying? I mean, I agree they shouldn't be sacked, but I'm not sure if that's an argument that would stand up and I've previously heard people saying they're not currently protected.

I honestly can't see why not being able to decide whether you fancy men or women would be something of interest to anyone except the indecisive person. Why should an employer have any views about this person with regard to their sexuality? Ditto agender: who cares, even if they know which there is no reason that they should? Why is any of this anyone else's business? Why should anyone care about a person being gay unless he is a pita about it?

Transgender intentions are only of interest to anyone except the person involved in shall-I-shan't-I dithering if it is either obviously fake (nobody likes being lied to, in my experience) or made such a fuss about that it cannot be ignored (which is never a good look in anyone: MiLs who interfere or are drama queens are in the same category, they should simply shut up, right?)

Why should anyone care about a person being gay unless he is a pita about it?

Aren't you kind of missing the point of anti-discrimination law? It's not there for the majority who don't care what your sexuality is, it's for taking action against the minority who treat you badly because of it. Be careful that 'pita about it' doesn't slip into subtle different treatment too.

Er, no, having been fighting this particular battle since the 1960s I do actually know that there are nasty little shitehawks out there who do care about someone being gay: they used to indulge in gay-bashing and murder because of it. But what I wrote (since I hope we have as a society grown out of thinking that sort of behaviour in any way acceptable) was "Why should anyone care about a person being gay" with the caveat that if the gay person is utterly objectionable on the subject of his sexuality, then people who have to put up with him probably will care – and ones who don't have to put up with him will probably avoid him.

In that case I think I have not understood the context of your post. Is it a response to the OP about whether gender reassignment should be a p.c. or answering someone else? Clearly homosexuality needs to remain protected, given there are some homophobes out there.

I'm not sure what you were talking about people 'not being able to decide' who they fancy either - not sure yet isn't a sexuality as such though if someone decided it was worth discriminating against you on, you'd be protected by the rules against discrimination on perception or association.

I am pretty sure it doesn't matter if "I'm not sure yet" is some official category or not, you aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of any sexuality.

EqA Part 2 Section 12:
Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—
(a)persons of the same sex,
(b)persons of the opposite sex, or
(c)persons of either sex.

I suppose c) could cover 'not sure', but I think really it means bisexual. But like I say any actual discrimination should be amply covered by perception or association so I'm sure 'not sure' would be protected if it was needed.

I know I will get backlash and rude comments in response but this thread seems more civil/intelligent than others. As a 44 year old trans woman I've waited for 3.5 years for my first gender clinic appointment and treatment was only advanced due to my company which is a big name in tech providing a psychiatrist assessment and an endocrinologist appointment as part of Bupa coverage. The main problem is surgery has a long lead time and I'll most likely have to go private. I'm fortunate as I earn a good amount and that's an option but a lot of my community doesn't have the option so I think it's hard to use that as a quantifier. Anyways, with that being said I'll probably get hateful responses to this post

That depends on what you class as "hateful", "backlash" and "rude".
Or whether you are open to a full and open debate.