Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

You already have the same legal protections as everyone else! And your second point is absolutely not true bc several court cases have been won by trans people claiming discrimination bc they're not conforming to sex stereotypes.

Transsexual aren’t just presenting differently or in a gender nonconforming way, most are undertaking a medical and legal process. That is why the protection exists, not just for how they dress.

What court cases are you referring to where a trans person won because of sex discrimination?

Transsexual aren’t just presenting differently or in a gender nonconforming way, most are undertaking a medical and legal process.

'Most' is only true if you take a circular definition that only those undertaking a medical or legal process count as trans. Hardly any trans people get a GRC, genital surgeries are a minority commitment, hormones are more common but definitely not universal. You previously said the criterion was dysphoria, but you can have dysphoria without doing any of these thing; and you can do any or all of them without having dysphoria.

I don’t understand though what benefit to gender reassignment being protected gives if sex is always prioritised (as it should be). Ok no one should be discriminated against if they present a certain way but other than that what does the protected characteristic get them?

But having an operation to change the bits under your clothes is the same as having any operation to change part of your body. Why does that change anything about you fundamentally. It is purely a cosmetic surgery like a nose job.

How is 'not discriminating against anyone' going to work in practise?

There is not an infinite number of houses on a list that just anyone can live in. That's not how life works.

And what does 'looking at a transsexual clearly transitioning or living in their affirmed gender' mean? If a man comes in with sparkly wellies is he 'clearly transitioning or living in his affirmed gender'?

These are all real examples gathered over the last 12-15 years by the way.

And my argument is that, if the GD is severe enough for them to be able to access medical procedures, then they will be covered under the disability PC, even if the GD disappears on treatment.
(Notwithstanding the completely separate arguments about whether someone should be given treatment that allows them to attempt to deceive others about their sex.)

I think we are going in circles now.

I agree with this. It should come under the, already protected, mental health condition category and I would expect a professional diagnosis to be in place.

Sexual fetishes OTOH should be kept private/between consenting adults and not brought into the work place. For example the NSPCC "Rubberman" (James Makings) or Phillip/Pips Bunce. This particular fetish depends on the coercion of employer and co workers in a way that makes others feel distressed/uncomfortable in their workplace.

Individuals with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment also typically have the following protected characteristics:

Belief (gender identity theory)

Disability (a compelling psychological inability to use the services intended for their own sex)

Sex – actually, case law says that having different dress codes for the two sexes is not illegal discrimination; but this could be changed if we really wanted to. Employers can still impose decency codes.

Nevertheless, I can still see a reason to protect Individuals from being denied goods, services, employment, or accommodation because they are, or are perceived to be, transgender, even though they have other protected characteristics to call on for protection.

(Nor do I see any difficulty arising from the fuzzy edges of 'gender reassignment'. GNC individuals are covered by perceptive discrimination protection, for example.)

The reason to keep this protected characteristic is political – it's a sop which is required for the time being because of the persistent existence of people who believe themselves to be transgender, and their misguided allies.

Because of increased sex equality (marriage, tax, pensions) since 2004, the only remaining laws that distinguish on sex are those that derive from physiology, and therefore can't accommodate the legal fiction of a 'sex change'. The GRA is therefore a dead letter: protection from anti-trans discrimination is all they've got left. Do we need to look vindictive?

(That's not to say that the concept of anti-trans discrimination hasn't had malign outcomes. It's been used for years, wrongly, to suggest that the following are all either illegal, or sufficiently antisocial to deprive the perpetrator of protected belief status:

Expressing GC beliefs.

Treating people in accordance with their sex, rather than their acquired gender.

For example, stopping someone with the acquired gender of female from benefitting from a women-only shortlist, educational or employment opportunity, service, or association.

And, not treating, as female, someone with the acquired gender of female, for the purposes of specific regulations such as those governing prisons, workplaces, and schools.

None of these things is anti-trans discrimination, and the government needs to start saying so.)

We are going in circles because you are trying to find a legal justification for a personal prejudice. You’ve admitted you view a trans person’s medical transition as a form of deception. This is exactly why the disability is not enough. A disability law protects my health but gender reassignment protects my dignity from people who view my life as a 'deception.'

I'm running a pub and I have two bar staff, a 5'6" woman in her 20s and a 6'6" man in his 60s. Both come into work on a Friday night and all of a sudden, the man is dressed identically to the woman. He's got a full face of make up, he's wearing a wig, a push up bra and a short-ish skirt.

Is he dressed appropriately for work? Not in my view he isn't and I wouldn't want him working in my pub, he's going to make the customers and his colleague extremely uncomfortable. I suspect the "protected characteristic" would force me to allow him to work in that get up. So no I don't think it should be protected.

I'm afraid that having the PC of GR won't stop people having an opinion on whether the goal of 'gender-affirming care' is ultimately a deception, or not. You cannot legislate for people to believe what you believe about yourself and your motivations.
Would make an interesting separate thread though

You’re completely right! It doesn’t stop you having that opinion and it shouldn’t, but it does stop you discriminating against someone like me because you view me as ‘deceptive’.

I think your views on transsexuals are abhorrent but I’m equally not allowed to discriminate against you.

Why is viewing men who say they are women as men, 'abhorrent'?

It’s not. I meant to reply to @HenriettaSwanLeavitt who said transitioning is deception and asked what is wrong with discriminating against transsexual people.

Transitioning whatever that actually is, IS deception. Your own and the demands you make on everyone around you.

Why is it abhorrent to know that men cannot be women and as such, view men as men?

Seriously, why do you keep coming here and doing this? If you have some sort of mental condition that makes you believe you're sex is not what it really is and that causes you genuine distress, I feel for you I really do, and I don't believe anyone in society should penalize you for that. But this is a place for people who know "trans" is just that, a mental condition and you are not actually the opposite sex. So demands for special recognition of something that is not based in reality are unreasonable, unnecessary, and dangerous. What you're demanding is not dignity it is that the rest of us concede to your beliefs that you truly are the opposite sex, not just that you believe you are. You may believe your dignity is being stripped bc we don't share your beliefs, but your attempting to strip others of their dignity by forcing them to act in a way that goes against their beliefs. What else would you call forcing young tween and teen girls to be exposed to naked males in an unsupervised locker room? Or a female athlete to concede a first place medal to a male? Who's dignity is being stripped there?

And the thing is, every single attempt at compromise is rejected by your side. No third bathrooms. No third locker rooms. No to the co-ed pond. No to a co-ed trans team. No to your employment and housing being protected under sex discrimination. No compromise so that EVERYONE can retain their dignity. Lets face it, if it was really just about getting changed or going to the bathroom or protecting your employment or preserving your dignity, you'd be thrilled at those compromises. You'd be grateful to live in a country that is willing to accommodate your feelings in a way that everyone can be happy and satisfied with. But no, bc none of those things achieve your ultimate goal of forcing social to redesign itself around your beliefs. Dignity my ass.

I think this is elephant in the room when people talk about ‘discrimination against trans people’.

I think lots of people are discriminated against in society on the basis of what their presentation signifies. Class, body weight, smell, demeanour, grooming etc. Discrimination happens in all societies and cultures to make sure people fit with the herd.

Some of it is deeply unjust such as race and class discrimination, and ‘the herd’ needs to be challenged of course. But are we sure that discrimination in the case of trans is actually about their trans status? Or other factors?

So an example I can give was a young lad working in Superdrug who served me. He had long pink hair, make up and wearing lots of trans badges etc. Actually if I’d have been a recruitment person I would have immediately spotted that he was rude and sullen, he had greasy hair, and was clearly intent on shoving his politics down everyone’s throats. So I would’ve not recruited him. Not because he was trans, but just because of his suitability to be in a retail customer facing role.

I would have thought that if you're a recruiter, a "trans" status is a huge red flag that this person has a much higher chance than the average to be a nightmare from an HR perspective.

Thank you - yes, certainly there is form for that. Ask Jaguar Land Rover.

You’re assuming a lot about what I believe and putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said you’re not entitled to believe what you do. I certainly haven’t claimed to be the opposite sex. I’m one person with my own opinions on these things and can’t be neatly classified into being on the trans side.

No to your employment and housing being protected under sex discrimination
Why are you so keen for transsexuals not be recognised as a group? Why is this a compromise I should accept? I have seen no coherent argument for why this doesn’t reduce my protection in law.

I haven’t come here demanding access to single sex spaces or demanded to refer to me in a certain way. All I have said is that transsexuality/gender reassignment should be a protected characteristic.

I really don’t know.

I’m a little bit sick of it all. On the one hand, I think that transgender people are such a small portion of the population that it doesn’t really matter. But on the other hand, they’re such a small portion of the population so why are they trying to make society fit them?

You need to provide a coherent argument as to what 'gender reassignment' is. And why it needs any protections under the equality act. What protections and why?