Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

Well that’s that specific companies failing. There was nothing in law preventing them from making him stop.

I have expressed no opinion about you, personally. I know very little about you. I have not said that I would discriminate against you. I have not said that you or the way you live your life are deceptive. I assume you consider yourself to be 'trans' but I have no idea of what medical interventions you have undertaken, if any.

What I said was that 'gender affirming care' allows people to try to deceive others about their sex. This is indisputably true. It may not be the case for all 'trans' people though. I know that there are some who, even post-op, agree that they are still male and do not encourage people to think otherwise.

I don't think it is helpful to personalise the discussion too much.

We all know that anyone voicing ANY DISSENT from the borg would have resulted in harassment, doxxing, stalking, sacking etc, so stop with this gaslighting.

That's the point though, the EA states 'gender reassignment' includes a proposition which doesn't even have to be made vocal. Just a thought on a man's head and everyone crumbles.

Pretending people were not 'getting ahead of the law' is bullshit, they said it time and again. Self Id was so very nearly implemented in the UK. It was us saying No and pointing out that a thought in a man's head does not make him a woman and going to talks and stickering and getting the message out there that put a stop to it. Plus the brave women that took their employers to court and to appeal and won.

I’m not gaslighting you at all. It’s objectively true there is nothing in the law preventing the employer from stopping that situation.

What that person did wasn’t right and was obviously fetishistic in nature. I wouldn’t feel comfortable around them either. Not being able to call it out is the problem, and not trans people being protected in the EA.

That's the point though, the EA states 'gender reassignment' includes a proposition which doesn't even have to be made vocal. Just a thought on a man's head and everyone crumbles
That is a ridiculous thing to say. For starters, to claim discrimination the person would have to prove in court they were actually proposing to undergo gender reassignment. And who said it doesn’t have to be made vocal? How would anyone discriminate on that basis if they didn’t know you were proposing to undergo gender reassignment?

Yes there was, there was 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act.

And he had a GRC. What does 'proposing to do' anything actually mean? It isn't ridiculous when you are TRYING TO APPLY THIS IN REALITY.

Gender reassignment protection doesn’t stop an employer from applying a dress code. If they had a provision that you have to dress professionally and apply it equally to male and female people there would be no GR discrimination.

And what does ‘proposing to’ do? It stops an employer from firing someone who says they are going to transition.

@toyl9876 And what does ‘proposing to’ do? It stops an employer from firing someone who says they are going to transition.

Do you think people who say they are 'trans' but don't intend to undergo any medical procedures should be protected under PC of GR?

I don’t think they should be protected under gender reassignment protection. If you’re able to but don’t intent to medically transition they I have a hard time see how that is anything to do with being transsexual/gender reassignment.

If there is no actual change in how someone lives their life I don’t think that should be protected.

We keep going round in circles because this makes no sense.

Not one person has ever transitioned to the other sex. So what does 'proposing to or going to transition' mean?

You could easily say that Mr Bo Peep transitioned that day so he would be protected when he brought his whole self to work.

The whole point of this is to try and work out how this protected characteristic can be applied in real life and as we can see, none of this makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, you’re just not engaging with what I’m saying. Gender reassignment in the Equality Act doesn’t say trans people have changed sex. The recent Supreme Court judgement confirmed that. What is does say is that someone going through the medical, legal, social process is protected from discrimination. We don’t change sex, but we do live differently to most members of our sex and that is what is protected.

It seems pretty simple. Just don’t discriminate against someone because they are taking hormones or having surgery related to gender dysphoria.

Presumably you are not asking for the PC to cover non-binary or gender-fluid people either. I think some of our mutual confusion is your use of the word 'trans'. Do you mean someone with diagnosed GD who intends to undergo medical procedures to look less like their own sex and more like the opposite sex?

Happy for T people to be protected against discrimination in housing, employment etc but not for women’s spaces which must remain single sex. Also, I see no reason to change language for c0.5% of people.

In my view non-binary or gender non conforming people wouldn’t have GR protection. Sorry I should’ve been very clear I’m specifically talking about transsexual people, meaning legitimately diagnosed with gender dysphoria and on a medical pathway. It feels wrong to use transsexual as a term sometimes but I’m trying to get in that habit of using it because it’s clearer

we do live differently to most members of our sex.

Hang on, is this another new addition to the definition? How is anyone else supposed to know you live differently, care about you living differently or indeed have to change their behaviour just because you want to live differently?

As I’ve said so many times you don’t have to change your behaviour. You just can’t indirectly or directly discriminate against transsexual. That means employment and housing, not a fetishist wearing frilly pants.

How is anyone else supposed to know you live differently
Most people will make this assumption based on appearance or behaviour. If you see someone you think is male dressing in female clothing, wearing make up, etc you would probably make the assumption because most men don’t do that.

I think you are wrong about that. No one has to prove anything. You just have declare that you are a man or a women and that is it. Most people don’t actually go through any gender reassignment of any form whatsoever they just have to say what they are otherwise you would be saying male/female is only about the way you present which goes against it is a feeling in your head.

To bring a discrimination claim they absolutely would have to prove they were seriously proposing or undergoing GR.

No, there is no word 'serious' in the act.

The whole thing is unworkable because it is about an idea about proposal whatever that means.

There is no way any discrimination in law would rest on someone having major surgery and how would you prove it either way? Genital checks are apparently frowned upon these days. It would be way too intrusive into someone’s private life and how would the person doing the discrimination know either way? And in any event you could easily say you were planning it at some point in the future. If you simply say ‘I am living as a women’, whatever that means, that is enough.

So a bloke puts lipstick on and we are all supposed to assume a whole host of things that actively give him a protected characteristic? It is utterly bloody unworkable.

By the time they are at the 'proposing to undergo' stage they should have had substantial interaction with psychologists and other specialists and it will have been agreed that they have serious GD which, untreated, will have a severe impact on ability to function well.
I simply feel, as outlined earlier, that this would be someone who would be covered by disability discrimination. I just can't see what the PC of GR adds. Maybe you and I are just going to have to disagree on this.

No, 'proposing to undergo' means just planning on putting some make up or ladies clothes on, according to the OP. Apparently we all need to know this if they just put some lippy on. Or paint their nails in glitter. Or something.

It is utterly batshit.

One of the first ‘changing room cases’ involved a M (no apparent medication or surgery) who claimed the right to share the F changing room. The women complained to their manager that he was often naked from the waist down. The manager asked him to stop. He resigned & sued at an ET for GR discrimination. He won because the judge said the manager would not gave asked a woman the same & his PC meant he had to be treated exactly the same as all other women. That is not true, however Stonewall etc had convinced judges that it was true. That is why this is such a sore subject & why the Supreme Court ruling was so important.

I have been inclined to give OP the benefit of the doubt, for the purpose of debate. However, I note on the Equalities Committee thread his inability to appreciate the costs to women of gender ideology. This is a familiar pattern that suggests good faith debate may not be possible

whay are you talking about? I was very clear in that thread how wrong it was for women to be treated that way. I haven’t tried to argue for access to female spaces. I’ve been very clear that is a boundary I respect.