Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

If 65.5% of trans people say they are non-binary how are they trans and why are they bothered by the Supreme Court ruling

104 replies

IwantToRetire · 01/08/2026 19:05

This figure of 65.5% of trans people saying this is said to come from EU LGBTIQ Survey III.

Which just made me think that if that is the current or even future trend of "trans identity", then the Supreme Court ruling, the GRA, most of the more hardline TRA activities, are just not relevant.

The TRAsy focus on sex and gender being interchangeable. So why is this minority group within a minority group running the agenda to have sex no longer seen as biological.

Not sure of the figures but apparently the largest group within the survey were those who said that they were Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual and that their sex was primary to that identity.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2026 00:07

IwantToRetire · 04/08/2026 17:58

However, they may be protected against harassment and discrimination by perception (read paragraph 4.51 to paragraph 4.53).

This is really strange and I dont see how it can be applied.

ie even if you are NB etc., if someone else perceives you to be what? a man, a woman, trans and harasses you indicating that their perception of who you are is the cause of the harassment you can then use the EA.

Just sort of saying this out loud, because I am trying to work out how it would work.

That’s been part of the Equality Act since it came into force. If you mistakenly think someone is “trans” or a woman even though they aren’t and discriminate against them on that basis (applies equally to the other protected characteristics) that is discrimination by perception.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/08/2026 00:11

IwantToRetire · 04/08/2026 17:55

I only posted this late at night more because I wasn't aware the Government had every made any sort of statement about the group of people (who it now appears are the largest sheltering under the rainbow umbrella) and how they are or are not covered by the law.

So it seems to imply that so long as someone is saying they are gender fluid, non binary or whatever, they aren't covered by an law.

If someone then says I am working towards transitioning then they cease to be NB etc., and are on the pathway to transitioning so (assuming this is serious intent) covered by protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Show quote history

Yes, this has been discussed many many times on FWR over the years. The key case is the one brought against Jaguar Landrover by a male “transitioning” who was part time cross dressing in the workplace. It wasn’t a precedent setting case and wasn’t appealed but TRAs claim it as a landmark case. The man very clearly met the definition of gender reassignment through being a TIM, he wasn’t what most people mean when they say “non binary”.

nicepotoftea · 05/08/2026 08:05

Discrimination by perception has always applied to all the Protected Characteristics.

E.g. If I discriminate against somebody because I think they are Catholic, it is still unlawful discrimination even if it turns out that they are not.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread