You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Generally the error that people make is to substitute "gender" in for "sex" when describing protected characteristics. How "gender reassignment" is interpreted is a different question.
ffm-
Only if you haven't read the legislation. Gender ('gender reassignment' in the act) and Sex are both distinctly defined in the act and the interaction between the two is well thought out. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether there's a difference between what we colloquially refer to as 'gender' protections for trans/non binary/gender fluid people, and 'gender reassignment' protections. To me they're the same thing.
ReekBlefs
What's the functional difference between 'gender' and 'gender reassignment' as far as equality law goes? I don't see one. If a person is cis then their sex and gender match and they're protected under the 'sex' characteristic. If a person is trans then their sex and gender don't match, and they're protected under 'gender reassignment'.
We know from the Jaguar Land Rover case that non binary and gender fluid identifies are protected under 'gender reassignment' even though in that case no such reassignment is likely to take place.
So it feels much more accurate and less prone to misunderstandings if we use gender to refer to all gender reassignment (and fluid, and non binary) protections under the equality act. Doesn't it you?