The principle of anti discrimination laws is that ppl shld not be treated differently because of a protected characteristic

Exceptions are put into the law in recognition that sometimes fair treatment means different. Eg to meet needs related to disability, pregnancy, sex etc
This relies on an objective reason (usually related to something physical) or may be to overcome disadvantage of a group
Exceptions are also put in in recognition of freedom of association and belief. People should not be discriminated because of religion, sex, ethnic origin etc.. but people should be able to chose form associations based on characteristics & practice their beliefs
These two types of exception are different - the first is because of objective justification to exclude others from a public or commercial benefit, while the second is because of a freedom in our personal lives
There are some characteristics where there are significant needs for differential treatment - age, sex, disability, pregnancy, and others where there are not - eg sexual orientation and race
"gender" has often been used as a synonym for "sex".

Its not clear what it means, but recently often read as "gender identity"
Like race and sexual orientation there is no objective justification for treating someone differently because of gender identity - eg. A rugby club should not treat someone differently or worse because they are gay, black, jewish, or identify as non-binary
But there are lots of situations where #sexmatters: you can and should treat people differently because of sex - in hospitals, changing rooms, sports, toilets etc...
The conflation of "sex " and "gender identity" is confusing and makes sex based rules difficult to explain and enforce.

If we say sex when we mean sex things become simpler and clearer .

The words man, woman, male and female relate to the protected characteristic of sex.
"gender reassignment" when it was first conceived of was a physical type of characteristic -- a person was embarking on a process of physical changes to their body which might therefore require the first type of exception to discrimination rules - to meet an objective need.
But right from the start there was wiggle room, and this has been expanded and expanded. Today the majority of people covered by protected characteristic have no physical changes to their body, or have only facial or breast surgery. Nor is a diagnosis required.
A PC that does not relate to any physical or objective difference, is more like race or sexual orientation -- something that should generally be ignored by employers, service providers to treat ppl equally, rather than something covered by specific needs like age & sex
It operates more like a belief -- some people believe in God, some don't . Some people believe in gender identity some don't.

People should not be harrassed or discriminated for either set of belief, and orgs should check that rules and policies don't indirectly discriminate
But none of this needs to undermine the operation of the protection against sex discrimination (including through the provision of single sex services where justified)

Because sex is a different protected characteristic, and a wholely different thing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Maya Forstater

Maya Forstater Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MForstater

15 Oct
"Institutionally sexist" GMB now going after Rosie Duffield
"Bullying, harassment, misogyny and cronyism are endemic" said Karon Monaghan

Their arguments about the Gender Recognition Act are incoherent and do not consider women's rights and interests

Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
What I do not understand: while thiswas happening to @whjm, she was patron of @fawcettsociety, and Fawcett was saying nothing. Fawcett could not say JK Rowling's name. Fawcett & @EVAWuk would not talk about it.

Are we supposed to have have a stiff upper lip about this?

Why?
This employment judge got it -- open season has been declared on women who talk about women's rights .



And women's sector organisations kept up a wall of silence.

Why?
Read 4 tweets
9 Oct
So the @CareQualityComm @CQCpressoffice have also updated their equality policy on their website.

Remember this was the mess they'd made of it before
This is their revised version.

At least they've got 9 characteristics this time (and remembered about pregnancy/maternity) , but still they refuse to say "sex" and "gender reassignment"

Instead they replace sex with "gender" and add in "gender identity and expression"
Please try again. Don't make things up.

Refusing to use the word "sex" for the protected characteristic of sex even after other errors have been corrected suggests you don't take seriously your responsibilities in relation to sex discrimination and sexual harassment
Read 6 tweets
8 Oct
Acceptance without exception: Don't. Ask. Questions.

I asked @LGBTIQAGreens about whether women can ask for a female doctor

#deleted

Karen Varley @CUPWomensPledge asked about the definition of woman in a @fawcettsociety @5050Parliament @Conservatives meeting on women in politics

#deleted #ejected

thecritic.co.uk/expelled-from-… (HT @jo_bartosch )
. @kiritunks asked about why Stonewall is lobbying to have the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act removed, at a @stellacreasy @stonewalluk meeting on Stonewall

#deleted #ejected

Read 5 tweets
8 Oct
. @TheLawSociety got so excited doing a spring clean of the protected characteristics they put pregnancy and maternity in the bin

@MaternityAction @ehrc @PaolaUccellari #sexmatters
This is what they say ..... lawsociety.org.uk/about-us/work-…
Read 4 tweets
8 Oct
Watching JK Rowling at speak @PENamerica gala in 2016

HT @DanielleDASH

danielledash.com/a-quick-read/j…
"In my 20s, I worked for Amnesty International, where I learned exactly how high a price people across the world have paid and continue to pay for the freedoms that we in the West sometimes take for granted."
" I worry that we may be in danger of allowing their erosion through sheer complacency. The tides of populism and nationalism currently sweeping many developed countries have been accompanied by demands that unwelcome and inconvenient voices be removed from public discourse.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!