Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

The over 65s are a group of people that have age in common.
Asian British Chinese are a group of people that have ethnicity in common.
Trans is a group of people that have 'saying they are trans' in common. It's circular.
Age has a clear definition. Ethnicity less so, but we generally know what people are getting at when they mention ethnicity. 'Trans' means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

You say 'Age' is clear because it's a number, but 'Gender Reassignment' is also clear: it's the act of moving from living as one sex to another. It’s no more circular than 'Religion' (which protects people who practice a religion) or 'Disability' (which protects people who have a disability). The law doesn't need a biological 'essence' to protect people. It just needs to recognise that a specific group of people is being targeted for a specific reason. If someone is fired for transitioning, the motive of the employer is perfectly clear, and that's exactly what the law is there to stop

'Gender Reassignment' is also clear: it's the act of moving from living as one sex to another

This will include autogynaephiles. I don't want the law to treat them as a protected group.

How can 'gender reassignment' be clear when it includes everything from a thought in someone's head?

The law doesn't group people because they are identical, it groups them because they face the same specific type of discrimination.

I have already explained in several posts that, as far as the PC of GR is concerned, that I do not believe this to be the case, ie. they do not "face the same specific type of discrimination".

Removing the category doesn't help your hypothetical pregnant lesbian

I did not suggest that it would. What I said was that the current system is unfair by including a redundant PC of GR that creates unnecessarily privilege.

it just ensures that when a trans person is targeted for being trans, the law is forced to pretend it didn't happen.

"Trans" is a culturally bound, unstable social construct, unlike Age, Sex, Pregnancy, Sexuality, etc. It is therefore debatable whether "transness" should be legally recognised in the same way as other characteristics that attract protection from discrimination. That does not mean that people who claim a trans identity should not be protected from discrimination.

Hypothetically, if the PC of GR did not exist then a person claiming a trans identity and alleging unfair discrimination would know, depending on the nature of the discrimination, which of the remaining PCs applied.

The law would not be "forced to pretend it didn't happen".

Application of the law would instead clarify the basis for discrimination in terms of characteristics shared with others and this could be reflected in statistical analysis.

For example, annual statistics for successful discrimination cases could state the number and percentage of males claiming a trans identity vs females claiming a trans identity who were unfairly discriminated against on the basis of:

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

The first of those is already much more likely to be alleged by someone who claims a trans identity and very unlikely to be claimed by anyone else.

And what does living as one sex even mean. No one has ever explained this without reference to skirts and make up, neither of which, as a woman, I am wearing today.

it's the act of moving from living as one sex to another.

But a man with the PC of GR cannot use women's single sex spaces under the EqA.

MH issues are a thought in someone's head. That's why I think GR should come under disability. If someone wants the protection then they need to engage with medical care, which I think is a good thing (at least it would be if gender dysphoria clinicians did their job properly).

OneDarkDeer, can't you see how bonkers this all sounds?

A man can not only decide that he wants to live as a woman but he gets to decide what that means and the state protects this?

it's the act of moving from living as one sex to another.

But that's bollocks, isn't it? The law is built on sand.

I did not suggest that it would. What I said was that the current system is unfair by including aredundant PC of GR that creates unnecessarily privilege
You’re going to have to explain how having a PC for transition is unnecessary privilege. It doesn’t give someone the rights of the opposite sex now that has been clarified. All it does is protect some transitioning from being discriminated against. If the PC is removed it will allow discrimination on the basis of transitioning because that won’t be converted by another PC. An employer could say they don’t want to continue employing someone who wants to present as the opposite sex and this would be legal.

Not so. Everyone has employment protections.

If it’s not a protected characteristic it can be used to decide not to hire someone. A company could easily fire someone for transitioning as long as they follow a fair process.

Without the PC, transitioners wouldn’t
have protection for the first 2 years (6 months from next year)

Right, so firstly a goalpost move from dismissal to hiring.
Why should someone 'trans' who is not under medical care (PC of disability) have more protection than someone with, say, face tattoos?

Then:
A company could easily fire someone for transitioning as long as they follow a fair process.
That wouldn't be a fair process.

https://www.acas.org.uk/dismissals/unfair-dismissal

I’m not moving the goalposts, just pointing out that the equality act is wider than just employment protections. Plenty of people are under medical care and don’t qualify for disability protection. The condition has to be severely impacting your functioning to be covered under the equality act.

Protection for unfair dismissal only kicks in after 2 years continuous employment (6 months from next year). Someone transition would have no protection during that time without the protected characteristic. It also wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a company saying someone isn’t a cultural fit anymore after they transition, and they could be fired as long as a process is followed (meetings, notice pay, right to appeal)

Why should someone 'trans' who is not under medical care (PC of disability) have more protection than someone with, say, face tattoos?

This point is worth thinking about.

The condition has to be severely impacting your functioning to be covered under the equality act.

Well, severe gender dysphoria would qualify. I've argued this upthread and am not going over it again. Anything else is just a lifestyle choice imho, and not deserving of any more protection than someone coming to work with a face tattoo or blue hair or piercings or a belief in alien abductions.

You’ve effectively admitted that your goal isn't legal clarity, but a deliberate desire to leave a specific group of people with zero protection against being fired or denied a job for who they are. Comparing a fundamental life transition to a face tattoo isn't a legal argument, it's just a way to trivialise people you don't like, and I'm done debating someone who values their own prejudice over basic employment rights

Comparing a fundamental life transition to a face tattoo isn't a legal argument

This fundamental life transition could be a man changing his preferred pronouns.

So you employ the TRA tactic of crying 'prejudice' because you have run out of road.
If it isn't trivial, it will be a disability.
A man growing his hair and wearing a dress is not a fundamental life transition.

You are resorting to name-calling because your fabricated version of employment law completely collapsed under scrutiny. I didn't run out of road, you ran out of arguments, and I'm not going to keep debating someone who simply refuses or is unable to understand how the Equality Act works

Mate, I literally quoted ACAS.

Okay, mate. The absolute irony of you trying to weaponize ACAS when their official guidance explicitly reinforces everything I just told you about day-one rights and recruitment protection is the perfect note to end this on. Have a good evening.

You want day one rights and PC protection for someone who says they are 'trans' but does not have sufficient dysphoria to engage with mental health care. I'm saying, no. That is giving them rights above other people who are gnc or just non-conforming or have mild MH issues. No, it's not justified and unfair. Plus it gives PC protection to fetishists.

Anyone who is truly, severely dysphoric will be covered by disability, as is right.