Hi @HomesEngland @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal Opportunities section in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Female
Male
Non Binary.

1/14

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/14
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

3/14
'Gender' relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes.

4/14
'Non Binary' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, is not defined in the Act and is not part of the protected characteristic of sex.

5/14
In your Annual Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Report 2020/21, you state that 'gender' and 'gender identity' are protected characteristics under the Act when they are not.

https://t.co/rXZPN8KbYt

6/14
There is a protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', but you don't mention that.

https://t.co/2o53ufahzA

7/14
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

8/14
If you choose not to gather data on specific protected characteristics (such as sex), you cannot have the information required to ascertain whether or not you could be discriminating on protected characteristics in recruitment. This could be vital in an employment tribunal.

9/14
If you choose to discriminate on characteristics (such as 'gender') that are not protected characteristics under the Act, you may inadvertently indirectly discriminate on protected grounds.

10/14
Given these errors and your use of incorrect terms, it's not clear how you can meet your Public Sector Equality Duty or how you have met it in the past given your data could have been corrupted by those who didn't provide their sex.

11/14
Nor is it clear how you can have had due regard to the other duties given the data you have collected.

12/14
Language and meaning of words are important and proper use & understanding of terms is vital so that the public is aware of what rights they have and what your duties are. Any confusion or inconsistency over meaning may prevent people from accessing their rights in law.

13/14
Will you undertake to correct these errors and to review all your other policies, documents, reports, etc to ensure compliance?

Please respond.

https://t.co/RJAWJ1vJ6s

14/14
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from sexnotgender.info

Hi @UHSFT @uhs_jobs @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal opportunities section of your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and lists sex as a protected characteristic twice.

However...

1/11


However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

2/11

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

3/11


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

4/11


Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

5/11
Hi @OpenUniversity @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal Opportunities Form in your job application correctly has sex in a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

However...

1/13


However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female
Unknown
Undisclosed
Others
Prefer not to say.

2/13

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

3/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - your other terms are not valid or incoherent.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

4/13


You then ask "Is your gender the one you were assigned at birth?"

'Gender' is not 'assigned' at birth: sex is observed and recorded and is immutable.

'Gender' relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes.

5/13
Hi @SussexUni @adamtickell @profsaulbecker @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal opportunities monitoring form in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female
Other.

https://t.co/DbKgiLN5yG

1/10


'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/10


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'other' is not a valid option.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

3/10


Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

4/10

If you choose not to gather data on specific protected characteristics (such as sex), you cannot have the information required to ascertain whether or not you could be discriminating on protected characteristics in recruitment. This could be vital in an employment tribunal.

5/10

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.