The EHRC is recovering from the legacy of the former CEO David Isaac, who was also a chair of Stonewall: a fox in the henhouse. The guideline you quote is inoperable. I have always seen the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment as confusing at best and unworkable at worst. A 21 year old man can simply say he intends to become a woman, make no changes to his appearance or dress, and for the next 50 years, say, insist on being called Sheila, referred to as 'she' and using the women's toilets and changing room. Anyone who doesn't play along with his game can be reported for discrimination under the PC of GR. The PC should properly have been called Pretend Sex. Utter madness.
I understand your frustration at how the law has been misrepresented but that isn;t how the PC of gender reassignment works. It doesn't confer a right to use single-sex services of the opposite sex and it doesn't mean that people who disagree with gender identity theory can be successful sued for discrimination just for disagreeing. The PC was intended to protect those who were undergoing surgery and other medical interventions. Expanding it to include Self-ID was an activist move that doesn't reflect the law and shouldn't be accepted as a means of arguing against the the PC altogether. If the PC doesn't entitle someone to X then I think it's best that we don't double down on the idea that it does.
No, that is not correct. The explanatory notes make it clear that it does not intend to protect only people undergoing medical treatment or surgery. see this example:
"A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act."
Unless of course you argue that the explanatory notes' example is a misinterpretation of the section.
Anti-discrimination protection for gender reassignment predates the Equality Act by about 15 years, following PvS. That was tied directly to an intention to undergo medical intervention. The provision in the Equality Act envisages the possibility of someone being covered under the PC but there must be a settled intention to undergo a process of reassignment as per AA and Ors v NHS. The protected characteristic is not self-ID of identity and it absolutely doesn’t provide access to single-sex services of the opposite sex.
Michael I know all this, and I knew before you expressed any interest for this area of law. I just noted the explanatory notes do not require any medical or surgical intervention for the protected characteristic to apply. As you well know. I imagine then you say the explanatory notes are wrong? This is well possible. The law in any event is not clear whether the settled intention ever has to materialise
Alessandra we’re either having a public conversation where we go through our reasoning or we’re not. I know you know this law. You know I know the explanatory notes. If I can’t walk through my reasoning without you feeling the need to remind me that you know all this already then we can’t have a conversation.
So do you think the explanatory notes misrepresent the law? They make it clear one does never need to undergo medical or surgical treatment to be protected under the PC of GR if they pass. To be honest I think it is wrong, as passing is not a legal criterion, but it is true that there is no clarity (regardless what some captured court with no clear understanding of the law claims) on whether the intention mentioned in the section ever needs to materialise. Do you think it is clear?
I agree it doesn't, but its widespread misrepresentation by the 'trans' lobbies and its acceptance as 'true' by institutions, the NHS, police, the judiciary, the CPS, the third sector, universities, schools and busineses has made it nigh impossible to assert the true interpretation of the law without being accused of transphobia, reported to one's employer or the police and cancelled.
BTW was Judith Butler involved in constructing that EHRC quote?
The EHRC is recovering from the legacy of the former CEO David Isaac, who was also a chair of Stonewall: a fox in the henhouse. The guideline you quote is inoperable. I have always seen the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment as confusing at best and unworkable at worst. A 21 year old man can simply say he intends to become a woman, make no changes to his appearance or dress, and for the next 50 years, say, insist on being called Sheila, referred to as 'she' and using the women's toilets and changing room. Anyone who doesn't play along with his game can be reported for discrimination under the PC of GR. The PC should properly have been called Pretend Sex. Utter madness.
I understand your frustration at how the law has been misrepresented but that isn;t how the PC of gender reassignment works. It doesn't confer a right to use single-sex services of the opposite sex and it doesn't mean that people who disagree with gender identity theory can be successful sued for discrimination just for disagreeing. The PC was intended to protect those who were undergoing surgery and other medical interventions. Expanding it to include Self-ID was an activist move that doesn't reflect the law and shouldn't be accepted as a means of arguing against the the PC altogether. If the PC doesn't entitle someone to X then I think it's best that we don't double down on the idea that it does.
No, that is not correct. The explanatory notes make it clear that it does not intend to protect only people undergoing medical treatment or surgery. see this example:
"A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act."
Unless of course you argue that the explanatory notes' example is a misinterpretation of the section.
Anti-discrimination protection for gender reassignment predates the Equality Act by about 15 years, following PvS. That was tied directly to an intention to undergo medical intervention. The provision in the Equality Act envisages the possibility of someone being covered under the PC but there must be a settled intention to undergo a process of reassignment as per AA and Ors v NHS. The protected characteristic is not self-ID of identity and it absolutely doesn’t provide access to single-sex services of the opposite sex.
Michael I know all this, and I knew before you expressed any interest for this area of law. I just noted the explanatory notes do not require any medical or surgical intervention for the protected characteristic to apply. As you well know. I imagine then you say the explanatory notes are wrong? This is well possible. The law in any event is not clear whether the settled intention ever has to materialise
Alessandra we’re either having a public conversation where we go through our reasoning or we’re not. I know you know this law. You know I know the explanatory notes. If I can’t walk through my reasoning without you feeling the need to remind me that you know all this already then we can’t have a conversation.
So do you think the explanatory notes misrepresent the law? They make it clear one does never need to undergo medical or surgical treatment to be protected under the PC of GR if they pass. To be honest I think it is wrong, as passing is not a legal criterion, but it is true that there is no clarity (regardless what some captured court with no clear understanding of the law claims) on whether the intention mentioned in the section ever needs to materialise. Do you think it is clear?
I agree it doesn't, but its widespread misrepresentation by the 'trans' lobbies and its acceptance as 'true' by institutions, the NHS, police, the judiciary, the CPS, the third sector, universities, schools and busineses has made it nigh impossible to assert the true interpretation of the law without being accused of transphobia, reported to one's employer or the police and cancelled.
BTW was Judith Butler involved in constructing that EHRC quote?