Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

I think perhaps the definition ought to be regarding what is happening at the time rather than what might be going to happen in a nebulous future. That is, the religion or belief should be a present religion or belief, not one which a person might decide to embrace in a few years' time. In the same way, pregnancy is something that is happening at the time and ceases to be a protected characteristic when the birth (or miscarriage) has taken place, at which time other laws take effect; marriage is what is the case at the time and presumably ceases to protect the individual in the event of divorce or separation; race is what is the person's condition at the time and for the foreseeable future; sex is what is present immutably at the time and until death; sexual orientation is what is happening at the time; age is the person's current condition not what they may experience in the future (or not, if they are run over by the Clapham omnibus). It would be absurd for me to be protected under this Act on the grounds that I assert that I might break my leg or become blind in the future, would it not?

The argument that if we dont have the PC of GR, we shouldn't have the PC of religion, is ignoring our history.

For centuries we have known who are catholics and who are protestant based on our names. We don't have to be practicing to be discriminated against.

I'll admit to having not the faintest idea whether Smith, Jones, Brown and so on are RC names or not. I am English, which might mean that I miss the NI experience here.

Of course, whether a person actually is of a particular religion or not doesn't actually matter, thinking about it, because it's if they are discriminated against on the grounds of the discriminator's belief as to their religion that counts, isn't it. Which makes my whole argument pointless; sorry for wasting anyone's time.

I wasn't criticising you. Sorry if it came across that way.

I didn't for a moment think that you were! I simply realised that it isn't about what is actually the case, it is about what the abusive person thinks is the case, so worrying about what's actual is wasting time.

As though a landlady mistakenly thought someone in the sixties was Irish and refused to rent out a room to him because of this, when in fact he came from Aberdeen. The prejudicial result to him would be the same even though the landlady had made a mistake.

quite - we would need to establish an objective standard of what is gender conformity to measure if someone is non conforming.

I am wearing jeans and a white t-shirt today. Am I gender non conforming today as I am not wearing a dress?

Is it just the concept of ‘proposing to undergo’ that you object to? If the PC was limited only to those who are transition, would this be ok?

All that would do is make it harder for trans people to bring a discrimination claim.

You are saying that it is currently easier for "trans people" to bring a claim than for anyone else to bring a claim. In which case the current system is inherently unfair in that it privileges "trans people" above all others.

That unfairness would be removed by removing the PC of GR. "Trans people" would then be on an equal footing with other people who might wish to make a claim for one or more of the following:

1. Sex Discrimination by Perception
2. Sexual Orientation
3. Disability Discrimination
4. Belief Discrimination

If we’re covered in the same way by the other characteristics, what difference does it make to leave gender reassignment as a PC?

Because the PC of GR:

a) would be redundant

• and, as you have yourself suggested,

b) it is unfair.

It wouldn't be such a very stupid proviso, certainly. But I think that is not quite enough.

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Planning and having started in a very minor way to do something are not the same as having done that thing, so perhaps it would be better to cut the cackle and get to the horses. Also, since you cannot change sex, "reassigning the person's sex" is a nonsense and needs correcting, particularly when talking about "gender reassignment":

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person has undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning the person's gender by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Just growing your hair, putting on a skirt and calling yourself Maisie (while also wearing a beard) really ought not to be protected with the full force of the law falling on anyone who titters about it.

You are saying that it is currently easier for "trans people" to bring a claim than for anyone else to bring a claim. In which case the current system is inherently unfair in that it privileges "trans people" above all others.
That’s not what I was saying at all. Bringing a discrimination claim on the basis of gender reassignment is the same ‘easiness’ as any other protected characteristic. That law recognises that gender reassignment is a distinct vector for discrimination that isn’t neatly covered by the other protected characteristic. I’m saying removing gender reassignment as a PC will put trans people at a disadvantage compared to other people and that is what would actually be unfair.

"or other attributes of sex"

Currently the only proof of "living in the acquired gender" that is required for a GRC (in addition to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria) is documentation, eg. of change of name and/or Title on household bills.

It is hard to imagine that the PC of GR under the Equalities Act could require more evidence than is required to obtain a GRC under the Gender Recognition Act.

For example, under the current Equalities Act system, all a person would have to do to be covered by the PC of GR is to state that they, for example, intend to ask their Utilities Company, etc. to change the name on their account.

Although I doubt that they would even need be that specific. Probably just,

"Hey boss! From the start of next week I intend to be LiViNg As A WoMaN!"

"OK. Contact HR and give them your new name and they will change your Employment Record. Anything else we can do to help you with this?"

Under the more restricted system you propose, all they would need to do is state that they have changed the name on their Gas Bills, etc.

Or just more vaguely state that they are NoW LiViNg As A WoMaN.

Or man, as might be the case.

That law recognises that gender reassignment is a distinct vector for discrimination that isn’t neatly covered by the other protected characteristic.

As far as this is concerned, I think the law is an ass.

Reading the debates in Parliament on the passage of both the GRA and the Equalities Act, it is clear that many legislators in both the Commons and the Lords would agree with me.

Both laws passed in the form that they did because they were steamrollered through by a Government with a large majority - not because they are good law or make sense.

We shouldn't underestimate how the perception of unfairness can cause real division in society. Maybe particularly so in the UK, where we pride ourselves on a sense of fair play. That's why men in women's sports gets such traction.

I’m struggling here to understand what you believe. What is it about gender reassignment being a PC that you think takes away from other people?

Why is a man who wants to be treated as if he is a women protected?

The diagnosis is that he feels distress with the knowledge that he is a man. Not that he is actually a woman.

Any treatment would not change his sex.

So why is the GRA and PC of GR treating these men as if they are not men?

What is different about Eddie Izzard compared with any other man wearing the same clothes? Would someone not employ Izzard but employ my husband if he presented in the same way? Why is Izzard protected and not my husband?

That's why men in women's sports gets such traction.

Still nowhere near enough, though. I just read a FB post asking, with the World Cup on, will FIFA be ready to make sure only natal females play in the Women’s World Cup in 2027? Don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.

What is different about Eddie Izzard compared with any other man wearing the same clothes? Would someone not employ Izzard but employ my husband if he presented in the same way? Why is Izzard protected and not my husband?
If your husband was not employed because they thought he has undergoing gender reassignment he would be protected by discrimination by perception.

Except changing it to "has undergone" would of course mean people who are waiting for treatment (NHS waiting lists are 2+ years long just for a first appointment) would have no protection from discrimination in the meantime. Nor would an employer or service provider necessarily be aware if someone has or has not undergone any process (and nor can they ask, given this is private medical information) so would not know if the protected characteristic applies or not - presumably they'd just have to wait and see if they get sued. The broad wording isn't arbitrary; the point is to provide protection from discrimination at all stages of transition, and to acknowledge that not everyone can or wants to transition medically along the same process.

I agree. I was thinking about the UK specifically, but FIFA seems to be a whole different ball game (😎)

The broad wording isn't arbitrary; the point is to provide protection from discrimination at all stages of transition, and to acknowledge that not everyone can or wants to transition medically along the same process.

Transition from what to what?

A man transitions to be not a man anymore?

Thats what is wrong with the PC. It suggests that the man protected by GR is no longer a man. But he still a man isn't he? He should get all of the protections any man had, but should not be treated as if he is not a man.

Humans can't change sex.
This whole ideology has cost so much time and so much tax payers' money, caused our children so much damage.

Nor would an employer or service provider necessarily be aware if someone has or has not undergone any process (and nor can they ask, given this is private medical information) so would not know if the protected characteristic applies or not - presumably they'd just have to wait and see if they get sued.

Someone who has a disability has to inform their employer that they have a disability in order to benefit from the employer's legal obligation to provide "reasonable adjustments".

That is definitely "private medical information" that they are required to share.

People with invisible disabilities need to "out" themselves in order to benefit from protection under the Equalities Act.

A person with an invisible disability would have no claim for unfair discrimination under the PC of Disability if they withheld information from the employer that they had a disability.

By contrast, there is no requirement for someone to have any contact with medical services in order to qualify for protection under the PC of Gender Reassignment. In which case there would be no "private medical information" to disclose.

Should the employee want to have paid time off to attend medical appointments at a Gender Clinic, or was taking sick leave to do the same, then obviously they would need to disclose their medical status in order to obtain those benefits.

It is their choice: if they do not want to disclose their "medical information" in order to obtain protection under the PC of GR then they obviously forgo that protection.

What is it about gender reassignment being a PC that you think takes away from other people?

Well, there is a huge list if you want to go down that route but mainly due to misinterpretation of the meaning of "sex" in the Equalities Act.

Women's Sport has already been mentioned. Then there are all the grants, awards, prizes, employment and political opportunities designated for women in order to encourage participation of women in male-dominated areas.

Men who call themselves women taking away the dignity, privacy and safety of women who need same-sex accommodation or care.

However, what we were actually discussing was that a "catch all" PC of GR unnecessarily privileges someone with the PC of GR who is actually being only discriminated against on the basis of, for example, Sexuality (homophobia).

Compare with a pregnant lesbian with a disability who might rightfully need to claim, and prove separately, unfair discrimination on the basis of:

1. Sex
2. Sexuality
3. Disability
4. Pregnancy

There is a presumption of intersectionality inherent in the PC of GR that in practice might be totally irrelevant, ie. the "distinct vector for discrimination" that you posited earlier.

Meanwhile, actual intersectionality, which was intended to address the dual discrimination affecting Black women in the USA, is not addressed for anyone covered by the other Protected Characteristics.

The PC of GR treats some people as a special sort of human unlike any other.

Firstly, no, they are not.

Secondly, "trans", and therefore the PC of GR, covers a completely heterogenous mixture of characteristics and people.

There is no commonality between, for example, a pre-teen girl distressed by the onset of puberty and wishing she was a boy and, for example, a middle-aged to elderly man who has decided to "transition" from being a weekend transvestite in fetish clubs to "bringing his whole self to work" as an occasional to full-time cross-dresser.

That is is where the "shoehorning" comes in, ie. in the creation of the PC of GR.

You are arguing that the law shouldn't have a Gender Reassignment category because trans people are too different from one another. But by that logic, we would have to remove 'Age' and 'Race' too, because a teenager doesn't have the same life experience as a pensioner. The law doesn't group people because they are identical, it groups them because they face the same specific type of discrimination. Removing the category doesn't help your hypothetical pregnant lesbian, it just ensures that when a trans person is targeted for being trans, the law is forced to pretend it didn't happen

@POWNewcastleEastWallsend Secondly, "trans", and therefore the PC of GR, covers a completely heterogenous mixture of characteristics and people.

This is my concern. 'Trans' seems to be a mental health issue for some, a lifestyle choice for others and a fetish for a third group. I appreciate that some people truly suffer from gender dysphoria, and that, for some, it can ultimately lead them to reject their sex characteristics and even have surgery. What I struggle with is the desire to go beyond removing or reducing those characteristics, to trying to adopt the characteristics of the opposite sex. It feels like dysphoria may morph into something else at that point.
I think PC of disability covers that which we understand as a mental health issue. GR seems to try to cover all sorts of things, some of which, such as fetishes, I do not think we should be covering.