Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

[toyl9876]

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

Oh FFS. I didn’t say proposing meant that. I just said someone doing those things is how you might assume they are undergoing gender reassignment. As I’ve said, I think this protected characteristic should very specifically apply to transsexuals, meaning they have gender dysphoria and are undergoing medical treatment

They could be covered by disability but it doesn’t go without saying. I don’t think we’ll ever agree that just making transsexuals rely on disability protections would weaken protections

But if the feeling is in your head as people say it is- , there is no obligation to make your body match that. Many choose to take hormones and have surgery but that does make them any more the opposite sex than someone who doesn’t.

We really are going in circles. I never said and don’t believe transsexuals have changed sex. If you make no changes to your body, there is no need for protection. If you do start the medical process, that what I’m saying should be protected

The thing is that you have proved that the term "gender reasignment" doesn't work.

Through out the thread you have bounced from Gender ID to trans to trans gender to trans sexual.

The last term being hated by a lot of trans gender people and trying to be reclaimed by trans sexuals.

IMO, the language has to be much tighter and much better defined before it should have been given protected status.

Why don’t you need protection from discrimination if you haven’t changed your body? It isn’t body discrimination - it is discrimination based on gender reassignment which is to do with your feelings and what gender you think you are annd how you want everyone to treat you. It has nothing to do with what your body looks like.

someone could potentially claim discrimination purely based on a colleague refusing to use your preferential pronouns.

Medical treatment indicates a level of seriousness of the gender dysphoria. If someone goes to that level before of their distress you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against them.

You cannot make law on assumptions.

Thats the whole point.

That isn’t the legal test though. There is no ‘seriousness’ in the legislation and there is no way there would ever be a way of defining the exact moment you have crossed the threshold. Even you have said, it involves having the physical reassignment or planning for it. How do you determine someone who is planning it and who has not if nothing is booked?

That’s exactly how equality act protection works. Someone either has to know or assume you have a protected characteristic. If it didn’t work that way someone could claim they didn’t know for sure so there was no discrimination.

Yes exactly and the knowing is simply a person saying they are now a women or a man. That’s it.

So you have never used a women's single-sex service and have spent the last two decades agitating for suitable 3rd space provision for TIMs?

You mean was I campaigning when I was 7 years old? I haven’t campaigned for anything. I’m a very quiet person just living her life.

Have you been using women's single-sex services?

toyl9876
Not being able to call it out is the problem,

Yes.

and not trans people being protected in the EA.

Except that people feel unable to call out foul behaviour because the protection of the EA allows the non-victim, the perpetrator of the behaviour, to shout "hate crime!" and get the person calling them out into trouble with the police.

And don't say that is ridiculous: it has happened enough times for it to be possible to classify it as simply fact. When "hate crime" can mean something as non-violent, unthreatening and not discriminatory as taking a photograph of a ribbon tied to a fence and posting it in a tweet, and get the woman who did this hateful thing arrested and threatened with criminal charges before these are dropped months later, women are unsurprisingly chary about courting the accusation that they are guilty of hate crime by not being as nice as pie to any old perv who wants to wear a gimp suit to work and claim that it's because he is trans.

Thing is, you don't have to be a transsexual to "come under the trans umbrella". You don't even have to be trans gender or intend one day to become trans gender. You can be all sorts of things including among others a cross dresser, agender, polygender, pangender, androgynous, or intersex – though people who are intersex generally despise being so classified and object strongly if "trans" is claimed about them. Or you can be an old-fashioned fantasist. It's hard to see how anyone is to know what your mental beliefs are in order to avoid you accusing them to the police of hate crime – which is defined as "anything the complainant feels is a hate crime", more or less.

The Met guidance says it is "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender." But not based on their sex; a woman can be openly threatened with rape and murder and it isn't a hate crime no matter how much they may perceive it as being based in hostility or prejudice based on their being a woman.

(The emphasis there is mine.)

Not since the SC judgement

Before that, did it ever occur to you that some women might feel a lack of dignity or privacy or feel threatened by having a male in their space?

I did think about it and that’s why I tried my best to reduce the chance of someone be distressed. I didn’t immediately come out and start using women’s spaces. I only did when I was reasonable certain I’d mostly blend in and not cause alarm.

So you broke the law. Are you ok with that?

Also. Mostly blend in means even you yourself knows you didn’t. Are you ok with causing people like me trauma?

Ignorance of the law, of course, is no excuse. I mention this because it is not as widely known as it ought to be.

Sorry, what law did I break?

The 2010 one that has recently been clarified by the Supreme Court, I expect. You were deliberately lied to by bad actors about that applying to gender rather than sex.

You forced a service provider to break the law every time you entered à single sex space You’re not entitled to do that.

I’m not a service provider so it isn’t possible for me to break the EA2010