Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

“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.”

And thats why it has to be reworded.

A man cannot reassign his sex. And its bonkers to write that into law.

Men like Debbie Hayton who has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, has had surgery on his genitals and acknowledges he has AGP, has the protection of GR. For what purpose? What exactly does this protection give him?

Why is a man who is sexually motivated to perform as a women in public given protection?

I am not a lawyer, but I think that if you have had a severe mental illness in the past then you are still covered under the PC, even after your recovery.
Having gender dysphoria strongly enough to medicate/have surgery would presumably count.

You are right that past disability is still covered, but that would still leave trans people unprotected. Most trans discrimination doesn’t take place because of someone’s medical history, but because of their identity. If trans people had to rely on disability protection it would 1) require them to prove their condition was severe enough to count as a disability to be protected and 2) not stop them being discriminated against just for being trans.

what do people who want to be identified as trans need protection from @toyl9876 ? People who don’t engage with their fantasy?

I kinda think this sometimes falls in the same category as someone who’s really into BDSM. I don’t like the thought of someone in full BDSM gear walking around in the grocery store… but I don’t exactly want it made illegal either…

I voted "no" because I think the protected characteristic should be broadened to cover any kind of gender non-conformity. Women with shaved heads, mastectomies, or wispy beards; men wearing lipstick and a dress or adopting a female name - all of these should be protected from discrimination. The existing "gender reassignment" protections would then be particular cases of this more general protection.

If it is not severe enough to be covered under disability, then why should it be covered at all? Why anymore than, say, people suffering from mild anxiety?
To say someone is 'trans' is far too vague for legislation.
As for 'identity', why are we legislating about someone's internal belief about themself? Unless you want to elevate it to the level of a WORIADS belief, and claim that PC.

No, it’s to protect trans people from very real discrimination and hard like:

• being fired just for being trans
• being refused housing

The law doesn’t police your thoughts, but it does stop you taking away their livelihood because you disagree with who they are

You are still saying 'trans' without defining the term

Let’s think about this a different way. By your logic, do you think it would be okay to argue that Pregnancy and Maternity shouldn’t be a separate protected characteristic because being pregnant involves a medical process? If a disability characteristic is enough to provide protection, couldn’t pregnancy also just come under that?

Someone is trans when they have gender dysphoria

Absolutely 100% gender reassignment should be a protected characteristic and should be widened to be clear that it includes every kind of gender nonconformity/nonbinary identification because the current definitions are too rooted in a very binary understanding of gender. Everyone should be able to live their lives free from discrimination. I think we should be working towards a redrafting of the gender recognition act which simultaneously widens and liberates rules to allow for a simple self-ID for gender with a wide range of potential genders to choose from, whilst also affirming that sex and gender are two different and independent characteristics and sex is immutable and fixed at the moment of conception. Single sex spaces are accessed on the basis of sex not gender therefore all businesses and providers who make any kind of legal differentiation for males and females must be obliged to keep data on sex and gender as two different independent data points, but most people spend most of the time in circumstances where there is no distinction on the basis of sex so no problems will arise. It is vital for gender "reassignment"/transition/nonconformity to be a protected characteristic to ensure that where it is legitimate and reasonable to provide single-sex services, trans people are not significantly disadvantaged compared to other members of their sex.

Pregnancy and maternity are nothing to do with what is going on inside someone's head. Being pregnant and giving birth do not have to involve medical processes.
This is getting a bit silly. I might pick up the thread again in the morning

You were the one who argued trans people would be protected because of disability, so I don’t understand why you are now trivialising it to just being something in the head. Sleep well

The equality act, as far as I understand it, is to protect people or groups who may face discrimination. One of the groups is those with a disability. If people had genuine diagnosed gender disphoria they would be protected under the disability category. And that’s as far as it needs to go.

‘Gender reassignment’ is a fiction, changing sex is a fiction and so is identifying as something else. The law should not be misrepresenting or overstating what being ‘trans’ is. For some it’s a lifelong deep sense of who they are (dysmorphia), but at the other end of the scale we know there are those who do it for their own fetishistic and sexual reasons which the law should not be pandering to.

I’m ‘GC’ [changed username recently after a MH break] and yes, now that sex has been defined in law I think there should remain some protections for fully transitioned persons who have obtained the GRC. Not the right to enter opposite sex facilities or generally usurp or erode the rights of women and girls specifically - but the ones that ensure they are not discriminated against in employment, applying for mortgages, and before the law when facing prosecution etc, ie ensuring that ALL person’s actual human rights (not the stonewall ones) are protected. They do have a ‘right exist’ [eyeroll] - and that includes without harassment or discrimination in public spaces.

Would be marvellous if that could be reciprocated, however.

Being diagnosed is not enough. There also has to be a significant impact on your life for it to be considered a disability. And the goal of transition is to cure the dysphoria so the severity should go down over time which means you could lose that protection. As mentioned earlier in the thread, it would only protect from discrimination based on the condition or previous medical history and not the fact someone is trans.

At the end of the day, there is only one reason to lobby for the removal of a specific protection: to make the actions that protection forbids legal again. If you aren't planning on discriminating, you don't need gender reassignment removed

Being gender non conforming could be protected under sex discrimination.

A woman with a beard should be treated the same way as a man with a beard or a women without one.

No-one has to lie and suggest that they are reassigning their sex. And no-one has to lie say that they are they are the opposite sex.

Why does it need to change to being protected through sex discrimination? Would the actual protections be different compared to gender reassignment as its own category?

I have no problem with trans people as long as men, including the ones who identify as women stay out of women's single sex spaces. It doesn't matter if they get surgery or "feel" like women, they are still men. They can wear what they want. Still men. They should respect women and girl's right to single sex spaces. Women and girls are being expected to give up dignity, safety and fairness in things like sports for these people. That's the issue GC for people. If trans people weren't stepping all over women and girls there would be no problem. Being transgender is not the issue, pretending biological sex is not real or has no real life implications is the issue.

"1) require them to prove their condition was severe enough to count as a disability to be protected and 2) not stop them being discriminated against just for being trans."

Literally all disabled people must go thru and experience the same thing.

Another perfect example of special, not equal, treatment being the ultimate goal.

See this is where you're being disingenuous. A) the definition of disability is having a physical or mental condition that impacts your life.

B) You're poorly attempting to play word games to disjoin gender dysphoria with trans identity when they're literally the same thing. I get that activists coerced Med organ to change the definition, but if you're a dude who feels compelled to put on a wig and lipstick - you have gender dysphoria whether or not you feel better afterwards. That's like saying a person with schizophrenia ceases to have it bc they found the right medication. Or an anorexic is no longer disabled bc she likes the way she looks. If you HAVE to do unnatural things to your body to feel good, that's a mental condition aka a disability.

You know darn well there's literally nothing about being trans that isn't already protected under existing laws. If you're a dude who likes to dress like a woman you can't be discriminated against bc that's SEX discrimination. Your goal, as has always been, is to lobby for SPECIAL recognition not equal treatment. Trans are not special.

Why? What is the concrete definition in law of ‘belief or faith’? Why should ‘gender’ be treated differently? It is, after all, merely a belief (not sure that it is a faith). It is more important to clarify whether the belief in gender identity or gender reassignment is a “belief worthy of respect in a democratic society”. The PC of faith or belief includes lack of faith or belief, so it would cover both those who believe that it is possible to be a male woman and those who do not. And it would also mean that a trans-IDing man could not require others to live according to his wishes, in the same way that a devoutly religious man could not.

What is 'proposing to' etc actually mean, is my point?

And the rest of the sentence does not even mention the words 'gender reassignment'.

Added to that, not one person has ever changed sex.

It is all undecipherable nonsense, hence why people want it gone.

In reality it means if we see a man we have to know what his thoughts are to know whether we can tell him he is in the wrong toilets or not.

Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic is legitimate and should remain.

the GRC though should be removed, as it’s this that creates legal conflicts. Plus, if GR remains a protected characteristic then a GRC shouldn’t be needed at all given the Equality Act doesn’t require you to have one in order to be protected.

This would mean the equality act remains intact based on sex. And not legal sex.