Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

When GR is defined, of course it should stay a protected characteristic.

Nail varnish and flirty socks are currently included, which doesn’t help anyone take this as seriously as it should be.

There’s nasty people out there who need to be told by law to behave themselves.

Did you ever stop to think why the protected characteristic of gender reassignment exists? It’s not because we are some super special privileged group, it’s because there has been very real historical and on-going discrimination.

If you think gender non-confirming people are discriminated against and need protection to maintain fairness lets campaign for that.

there's something new in the guidance which mentions children from the age of two

Do you have a link to where it says that?
I cannot think of anything more outrageous.

What might well need protecting is something like "perceived gender nonconformity", regardless of how somebody identifies. It would cover anyone who fell foul of prejudice about how men and women should present, irrespective of whether the assumption that triggers it is of transness, gayness or just being more feminine or more masculine than somebody likes. But I don't know how one would frame that in law so that it is both effective and can't be abused.
(There would need to be caveats about appropriate dress at work etc, as for any other person.)

What shouldn't be protected is any attempt to conflate sex with gender presentation in order to lay claim to opposite-sex spaces and services, or to compel others to behave as though somebody has changed sex.

You’re going to have to explain how having a PC for transition is unnecessary privilege

I have already done that - see my previous posts.

It doesn’t give someone the rights of the opposite sex now that has been clarified.

I did not say that it does.

If the PC is removed it will allow discrimination on the basis of transitioning because that won’t be converted by another PC.

Yes it would, although which PC would be relevant depends on what constitutes "transitioning" for the individual concerned.

For example:

• A man who considered that "transitioning" involved nothing more than a statement such as, "I am now a woman" or "I am living as a woman" might need to take and argue a case for unfair Belief Discrimination.
• A heavily medicalised and masculinised woman who presented convincingly as male and who either felt uncomfortable using a single-sex female facility or service, or was asked not to because it made other women anxious or fearful, and was not provided with access to a suitable alternative could take a case for Sex Discrimination by Perception and/or Disability Discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments).

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.

Depending on the circumstances, that could either be the same now, so no change, or it would it would be just as illegal as it is now, so no change.

I do not know what you have in mind when you say "presenting as the opposite sex".

For example, do you think they/them Matt Rattley should be covered by the PC of GR just because he wears huge fake breasts and frocks?

UK: Male Lecturer At Historic Women’s College Slammed For Wearing Massive Fake Breasts To Campus
https://reduxx.info/uk-male-lecturer-at-historic-womens-college-slammed-for-wearing-massive-fake-breasts-to-campus/

What about Nick Walker, another Professor, who says he's a woman but that he has no intention of "doing an outward transition"?

Or Miss Richard Firth, whose "transition" appears to consist entirely of

• calling himself "Miss"
• pronouns
• wearing a T-Shirt with his definition of a "trans woman"?

It actually says that there is no lower age limit at all

🤯

2. Who has rights under Part 3 (services and public functions) and Part 7 (associations) of the Act?

2.43 There is no minimum age for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means that children and young people are protected if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process of gender reassignment.

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#who-has-rights-under-part-3-services-and-public-functions-and-part-7-associations-of-the-act

Like how Greater Manchester Police decided to monitor hate crimes against punks, emos and goths in addition to the five nationally "monitored strands"?

Hate crime: Police record attacks on punks, emos and goths
4 April 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888

Somewhere there has to be a differernce between things that an employer would be a jerk to discriminate about (like taste in music) and things we should legally define as protected?

There are plenty of things that I think an employer might be unreasonable to require, but it is within their rights to do so.

I'm actually not sure why an employers shouldn't be able to decide he doesn't want men wearing dresses made for women, or presenting as women, any more than shouldn't be able to decide not to employ people with face tattoos.

There are lots of neutral clothes people can wear if they don't want to stick out.

That sounds like murky territory and potentially sex discrimination to me Tempest. I'm sure shops would confirm their garments are made for anyone they'll fit.

However, former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, said he had reservations about changing the legal definition of a hate crime.
He said: "People's racial origins, their religion, their sexual orientation, people's dignity in the face of disability - these have been lines in the sand with the law saying, look, these are crimes that threaten social cohesion as a whole and therefore national life.
"I'm a little cautious about watering down this concept."

I thought this was an interesting quote. The idea that hate crimes should be limited to threats to social cohesion makes sense. By extension this would also apply to which groupings get to have a PC.
Ethnicity YES
Being overweight (without an underlying disability) NO
Should we be encouraged to discriminate against overweight people? Of course not. Does it affect social cohesion if some people do? Possibly not.

I'm actually not sure why an employers shouldn't be able to decide he doesn't want men wearing dresses made for women, or presenting as women.

They would probably fall foul of the EA2010 if tested in court.

Office Dress Code UK: 2026 Rules, Examples & Employer Guide

5. Sex, gender and office dress codes

Some dress code policies set different appearance standards for men and women. Historically, this has been permitted where the overall standard imposed on each group is broadly equivalent. Case law, including Smith v Safeway, is commonly referenced in relation to the principle that employers may apply different requirements provided the overall burden is comparable and not more onerous for one sex.

However, employers should take care that any differences do not place a greater burden on one gender. For example, requiring one gender to wear specific items of clothing that are uncomfortable, impractical or more expensive may create a risk of discrimination claims. Employers should also take care to ensure dress code standards do not adversely impact employees undergoing gender transition or those who do not identify with gendered clothing norms. Employers should be mindful of potential risks relating to gender reassignment discrimination where policies are enforced inflexibly or in a way that targets an employee’s gender identity.

Many organisations now adopt gender-neutral dress code policies, focusing on the standard of dress rather than prescribing specific clothing based on gender. This approach can help reduce legal risks while giving employees greater flexibility in how they meet workplace expectations.

https://www.davidsonmorris.com/office-dress-code/

"individuals who cross-dress without intending to live permanently in the gender opposite to their birth sex are generally not covered under this protected characteristic." (Gender Reassignment)

https://www.davidsonmorris.com/gender-reassignment-discrimination/

Even if there was no PC of GR it could be the same outcome under the PC of Disability and/or Belief.

Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, 2026
Published 21 May 2026

Gender reassignment

2.46 A person who dresses and presents in ways which are commonly associated with the opposite sex will be protected where they do so as part of a process of reassigning their sex. The Act does not define what is meant by reassigning sex. It does not have to be a medical process – though some people will take medical or surgical steps – but it is likely to at least involve more permanent changes, such as changing one’s pronouns and consistently dressing and presenting as the opposite sex. A person presenting in a gender non-conforming way for some other reason does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, they may be protected against harassment and discrimination by perception (read paragraph 4.51 to paragraph 4.53).

Example
2.47 A group of men who have dressed in women’s clothing for a stag party are refused entry to a nightclub that has a dress code. This is unlikely to be discrimination based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

2.48 Where an individual has gender dysphoria and the condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, they will also be protected under the disability discrimination provisions of the Act (read Chapter 6 and Chapter 7).

Manifestation of religion or beliefs
2.82 The protected characteristic of religion or belief includes protection for the manifestation of a religion or belief. This protection is consistent with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2.83 Manifestations of a religion or belief could include:

• treating certain days as days for worship or rest
• following a certain dress code
• following a particular diet
• expressing religious or philosophical views online
• carrying out or avoiding certain practices

2.84 A person does not have to prove that the manifestation of their religion or belief is a core component of the religion or philosophical belief they follow. The manifestation may be a means by which they choose to express their adherence to their religious belief. However, there must be a sufficiently close and direct connection between the manifestation and the underlying belief [footnote 11].

2.85 Placing limitations on a person’s right to manifest their religion or belief may amount to unlawful discrimination. Read paragraph 4.91 for more detail.

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

The Code of Practice for Employers is going to be much the same when it is issued.

A big part of the PC of GR is about supporting GRA.

To get a GRC a man has to demonstrate he is 'living as a woman' and that is female id. He needs to have that Miss/Ms/Mrs title that he wouldn't get under any other PC.

The clothes choices, how he expects others to refer to him, if he is out as trans is up to him and his journey. And work dress codes.

The difference between a man's interpretation of 'living as a woman' and cross dressing is undetectable in law, along with everyone else's comfort.

The difference between a man's interpretation of 'living as a woman' and cross dressing is undetectable in law, along with everyone else's comfort.

Indeed!

It reminded me of occasional cross-dresser gender fluid non-binary "Philip/Pips/Pippa" Bunce (included in various "Top Women in Business" lists and winning awards intended for women) and "woman on Wednesdays" David Lewis (suspended from Labour Party for showing up the insanity of LP rules by applying to stand on a "woman-only shortlist).

A man for the salary: A woman for the photo gallery

"(Bunce) describes himself as non-binary and gender fluid and decides how he will present when he wakes up in the morning."
https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2024/03/31/pippa-bunce-un-women/

'Gender fluid' Credit Suisse director named on FT list of Top 100 Women in Business

"Philip Bunce, who is known to sometimes go to work in a wig and women's clothing, was named on the Financial Times & HERoes Champions of Women in Business list, an annual ranking of 100 "company leaders who support women in business."

"Credit Suisse posted on Twitter: "Congratulations to Pips Bunce on being listed on the Top 100 Female Executives list in the 2018 @HeroesinB & @FT champion of #WomeninBusiness #FTHERoes18"

Everyone on the list is nominated by peers and colleagues at their place of work. Nominations are reviewed by the FT and a judging panel of senior City executives.

Mr Bunce had previously described in interviews how he waited until he was "established" at Credit Suisse before he started to cross dress four years ago."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html

Then there is David Lewis . . .

Man declares he is female on Wednesdays to qualify for a women-only job in Labour to demonstrate why party gender rules are a farce
22 May 2018

"A male Labour activist has been allowed to stand for a women-only position in the party by exploiting gender self-identification rules to declare he is female on Wednesdays.

David Lewis has told party officials he is a woman from when his alarm goes off at 6.50am until midnight each Wednesday - claiming 'if I say I'm a woman, I'm a woman'.

The declaration meets Labour's rules on gender-specific positions because of party guidelines on self-identification"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-5758633/Man-declares-female-Wednesdays-qualify-women-job-Labour.html

. . . one day later . . .

Labour suspends activist challenging gender self-identification policy
This article is more than 8 years old
David Lewis stood for women’s officer role claiming that he was ‘a woman on Wednesdays’
23 May 2018

"A party spokeswoman said it was “committed to upholding the principle of affirmative action for women” but said obvious abuse of the process would not be tolerated.

“Anyone attempting to breach Labour party rules and subvert the intention of all-women shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures,” the spokeswoman said."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/23/labour-suspends-activist-challenging-gender-self-identification-policy

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

Whereas when a woman is targeted for being a woman, the law is able to pretend quite voluntarily that it didn't happen.

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

You really think a face tattoo is not a fundamental life transition? Why do you think this? (Do you know anyone who has one?)

OneDarkDeer
Did you ever stop to think why the protected characteristic of gender reassignment exists?

Yes, I did. I concluded that it exists because of some very heavy and determined lobbying by a small and vocal group to get it put in there with sex, race, disability, and other really distinct categories that have existed for a very long time, ie as long as the human race has existed. "Gender reassignment" didn't exist this time last century, and was therefore not discriminated against at all – you generally don't bother to discriminate against something that doesn't exist. (Cross-dressing did, but that is not an attempt to be or to be recognised as being of the other sex; it's just a case of wearing clothes associated with the other sex.)

The first cases of gender reassignment procedures took place in the 1920s and 1930s, so it did exist this time last century and has been a reason for discrimination.

If it was heavily lobbied for, why do you think this is?

The first cases of gender reassignment procedures took place in the 1920s and 1930s, so it did exist this time last century and has been a reason for discrimination.

One or two experiments took place pre-war but it is only in the last 50-60 years that oestrogen, genital surgery & boob jobs have been generally available for men so inclined.

Sorry, I've been looking for this everywhere, and have been back through the entire EHRC guidance thread, and can't find it. Someone mentioned "two" - might have been Sex Matters? I know I saw it somewhere, but I see someone else has posted that there actually isn't a lower age limit, so it's still as ridiculous as it would have been if it had said two!

1930, I think, in Germany. Quashed by the Nazis. Christine Jorgensen intended to go to the only clinic in the world which then performed sex-alteration surgery, in Sweden, but ended up in Denmark in the early 1950s instead. By 1952 she had been able to have an orchidectomy and a penectomy, both of them medical operations which had existed for a while but had not been intended to "change the sex" of anyone who underwent them nor been available for cosmetic reasons, but a vaginoplasty was not available to her until rather later.

Because some (surprisingly few, out of the population) people who are trans have absolutely nothing better to do with their time as well as being entirely focussed on getting for themselves rights which properly belong to the sex they are not. And because quite a few members of PIE were/are also very much in favour of trans rights, because when those are fully expanded to include pre-pubescent children it tends to get rid of child protection.

Because some (surprisingly few, out of the population) people who are trans have absolutely nothing better to do with their time as well as being entirely focussed on getting for themselves rights which properly belong to the sex they are not
Do you imagine it as some sort of well funded Machiavellian plot to take rights from women?

https://spectator.com/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

it's not our imagination

how on earth do you think the self described most marginalised group ever managed to get the entirety of the civil service, the government, nhs, media, arts sector, legal sector, finance sector and charity sector agreeing that men were definitely were women cos reasons?

of course it's been a bloody plot - abd an incredibly successful one! Things like that don't just happen - it requires an actual plan

Men are in positions where they can manipulate law, politics, the health industry.

The men who can say to a clinician that they feel like a woman, get governments to alter their birth certificate, get politicians fighting to get them into womens spaces AND claim to be the most marginalised are capable of anything.

Apart from objectivity, they refuse to see what they are doing to womens rights, partly because they dont see women as worthy of having rights.

Why would a girls comfort in a public toilet bother them when all they can focus on is themselves?

It must be exhausting living in a world where a standard corporate lobbying document is a conspiracy to mind-control the NHS and government. I’ll leave you to your tinfoil hat.

lol so no answer as per standard tactics - just hand waving and denial

I mean if trans ppl are the most marginalised group of ppl with no plan and all of this some how just happened - I'd hate to see what they would have done if they'd been organised....

Well it's clear as day what the NHS attitude to gender is, as shown in several well-publicised cases. not to mention the official policies of NHS Trusts as revealed by MN. A tinfoil hat is not required; merely to open your eyes.

Do you imagine it as some sort of well funded Machiavellian plot to take rights from women?

"You are right, Mr. Burns, for the very first time today!"