Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

What if the man IS the Line Manager?

Lots of men who 'transition' do so when they are middle aged and at the top of their profession.

Lots of the parents of children who identify as trans are in positions of authority, too.

I think one of the reasons trans is protected the way it is, without any clear definition is because so many of these men are the 'line managers'.

Dysphoria is a mental health issue, by definition. Should we have categories for every mental health condition? I think not.

What you are calling 'medical transition' is an ideological term. Nobody is transitioning from one sex to the other. That is impossible. What people are doing is undergoing a form of cosmetic surgery because they imagine it will make them feel better.

No. Pretending to change gender is a lifestyle choice/personality trait. It's not anywhere near the same as innate things like sex, race, sexuality.

Religion is of course not innate but religious populations have been persecuted many times at many points in history and have experienced actual genocide so I think that should stay.

You didn't actually counter my point about disability discrimination not working for transgender people. You just repeated your opinion. Disability protects you because of your severe condition or because it’s part of your past medical history. A trans person would have to prove they suffered severe impairment because of the condition to have discrimination protection. Are you saying it should be okay to fine a transgender person if they transitioned but their gender dysphoria didn’t stop them working?

A person doesn’t look at a trans persons medical history to see if their dysphoria was mild or severe before discriminating, they do it because the person is trans.

I'm saying it would put trans-identified people who don't qualify for disability protection (mild dysphoria??) on the same footing as a whole bunch of other characteristics that have the potential to be discriminated against. What's wrong with that?
If you think those people in other groups should be protected from discrimination, you should campaign for that and not removing protections from trans people.

What do you mean by 'trans' and how can we tell when someone is trans? Do we have to rely on their word for it?

To my mind, even the word 'trans' is an ideological construct that has been created to suggest that someone can be the opposite sex to that which they are.
But nobody is the opposite sex to that which they are.

None of the other protected categories have anything to do with imagined 'identities'....they are all predicated on measurable states/conditions of being that we have not chosen; with maybe the exception of religion. in that sense 'gender identity' is akin to a religious belief.

Pregnancy is not a disability nor a medical condition. It is a primary function of biological sex and the way the human species reproduces itself.

There's plenty of terrible line managers out there and of course this should be taken up by HR or senior management if the line manager isn't capable.

Part of the problem is that organisations like Stonewall and the many trans activists have spent years telling people that it is absolutely fine to wear fetish gear to work and that we're a bunch of pearl clutching bigots to object. Backed up by a fair few people who should know better. We need to get back to what used to be standard behaviour and use the EqA2010 as it was intended so a young woman having a beard doesn't disqualify her from being a bank clerk but that Mr Bo Peep in his 50s is subject to disciplinary action if he wears his fetish gear to work or goes into the ladies toilets. Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic is not a free-for-all for fetishists.

I would add that, just because someone isn't disciplined when they should be, doesn't mean that it is acceptable workplace behaviour.

Kemi Badenoch has written about how she wants to rid the Equalities Act of its use as a tool of social engineeering and manipulation, rathar than as a safety net designed to protect against discrimination.We need to be careful, and resist adding in endless new categories that represent nothing but personal or political identities.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-speech-equality-act-identity-politics-zcf9knk3d

I think the argument here is you are then gatekeeping and medicalising an identity.

Because you cannot change your XX XY chromosomes.
Live as you want to live - that's fine, but no trans women in womens spaces please.

I’m fine with that. The characteristic was meant to protect transsexuals but has now been co-opted by a bunch of who consider themselves to be transgender.

Again, if a man turns up to work dressed as Little Bo Peep, as happened to me around 12-13 years ago, with his frilly knickers showing, by your standards this is fine as long as he didn't use the women's toilets.

If I refused to go into an empty office with him, would that be discrimination?

Then you need to explain how people know the difference so that they can discriminate against those that are protected and those that are not. If your argument is that the characteristic of 'gender reassignment' should be kept.

How does a housing officer make that call? Bearing in mind nobody has to provide any GRC at any point due to GDPR.

Guys if you keep banging on about how 'I've seen people on here say X' and are unable to come up with satisfactory explanations or ways of practically managing situations that people face in real life, then you are also basically saying the same thing as everyone else. It is totally unworkable gobbledegook put into law.

Someone doing that is not okay, but it also isn’t strictly related to gender reassignment protections. It’s perfectly possible for a company to have a dress code to stop things like that and not discriminate against trans people.

That is a failure in leadership and not the law.

How is it perfectly possible, that's the question.

He had a GRC by the way. And a diagnosis of 'gender disphoria'. So it should all be good right?

Does ANY organisation have a line in the dress code saying 'don't wear your fetish gear to work'?

That would easily be solved by requiring people to do professionally or appropriately for the workplace. No court is going to agree someone dressing that is workplace appropriate.

Why do we need any "protected characteristics"?! Even the words are de-humanising.

It's just spawned and industry of lawyers and people who think they can claim some compo without changing how people think (just that they no longer say it out loud).

I am not in any way defending racism or mysogyny but I don't think making everything a legal battle benefits anyone other than lawyers!

If a housing officer looks at a transsexual person who is clearly transitioning or living in their affirmed gender, and denies them housing because they are trans, that is illegal discrimination. Even if they are not transsexual but the officer assumes, that is discrimination because they perceive them to the trans.

explain how people know the difference so that they can discriminate against those that are protected and those that are not
How about we don’t discriminate against anyone?

You misunderstand. I do not think that we should add further groups to the PCs. I think that any GD that meets the disability threshold should be covered under that PC. Any other level of GD should not have a separate PC. When you say people should have a separate category 'because they are trans', I just don't see why. Are you saying they should be protected because they present as gender non-conforming, because that is the only way anyone will suspect a person may be trans. Surely, if that is happening, the PC should apply to anyone gnc, trans or not? I understand the argument that PPs have made about making the whole gnc thing a PC, and have even tentatively suggested that myself in the past, but I'm not convinced that gnc people as a class are subjected to sustained discriminatory practices in services and employment sufficient to warrant a PC.

What is it that makes it clear that someone is 'clearly transitioning? How do we know that's why the housing officer is denying them accommodation?

What about if they deny accommodation to people wearing the T-shirt of a band they dislike, or everyone with a visible piercing? '

How about we don’t discriminate against anyone?' is a nice sentiment, but why then do some groups get legal protection against it and others don't?

What's the difference between a woman who wears trousers, has short hair, and doesn't wear makeup, and a transman who is 'clearly transitioning' by wearing trousers, getting a short haircut and not wearing makeup?

@toyl9876

How about we don’t discriminate against anyone?

We discriminate about things all the time. When I'm hiring at work I discriminate on the basis of qualifications, and on experience. I discriminate on the basis of a person's ability to communicate ideas effectively. I discriminate on the basis of professional presentation.

In the wider world I discriminate between foods based on their nutrition and taste. I discriminate on the basis of functionality and cost for services I procure. I choose not to frequent establishments that cater to philosophical or political beliefs I reject, or spend time socialising with the same.

Everyone discriminates about all sorts of things. All the time.