gender reassignment protected characteristic

• Our mission, vision and values
• Advisory group
• Become a trustee of Sex Matters
• Where sex matters
• Data and statistics
• Freedom of speech
• Legal system
• Relationships
• Schools and safeguarding
• Single-sex services
• Universities
• This damning judgment should be a wake-up call for the women’s sector
• The Charity Commission must step up to protect single-sex charities 
• The Jo Phoenix case should be a wake-up call for universities
• Dispelling the suicide myth
• The government wants examples of bad guidance on single-sex services
• Take action
• Submit evidence of bad guidance
• Ask your MP to read our report and call for action now
• Kickstart our next campaign
• Update your child’s school on the latest guidance
• Use School Check to find out if a school has been captured by gender-identity ideology
• Call out bad reporting on sex and gender with Bad Media Watch
• Donate to Sex Matters
• Leave us a donation in your will
• For employers and employees
• Sector networks
• For journalists
• For parents
• For service providers
• For teachers
• Campaign – sex in the Equality Act
• FAQs – sex and gender

FAQs – gender reassignment

• Groups defending sex-based rights
• Attacks on those defending sex-based rights
• Intimidation, threats and violence by trans-rights activists 
• Log of academics targeted
• Timeline of efforts to sabotage the UK’s equality watchdog
• Transactivist violence – on film
• Submissions

What does it mean for someone to have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” under the Equality Act 2010? The government, public bodies, many employers and even employment tribunals are often confused about this.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not mean that someone’s sex has changed or give them the right to make other people pretend that it has. 

These FAQs cover the definition of the characteristic and who it covers – and what this means for employers and service providers. 

Download these gender reassignment FAQs as a PDF.

What is the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”?

What does it mean to have this characteristic , who can have this characteristic , does having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment mean that a person must be treated as the opposite sex , does the equality act outlaw “misgendering”, is it harassment to “out” a person as transgender , can employers have policies which require people to refer to transgender people in particular situations in a particular way , what should employers and service providers do to avoid the risk of harassment claims , should schools have rules about “misgendering”.

The Equality Act 2010 at Section 7 defines the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” as relating to a person who is: 

“proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”

The law refers to this as being “transsexual”. But the term more commonly used today is “transgender” or “trans”. This broadly relates to anyone at any stage of a personal process. For example:

• A man tells his employer that he is considering “transitioning” and is seeing a therapist with the potential result of being referred for medical treatment.
• A man identifies as a “transwoman” without having any surgery or treatment.
• A woman identified as a “transman” for several years and took testosterone, but has now stopped and “detransitioned”.

The Equality Act protects people from direct and indirect discrimination, harassment or victimisation in situations that are covered by the Equality Act, such as in the workplace or when receiving goods or services.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination is when you are treated worse than another person or other people because:

• you have a protected characteristic
• someone thinks you have that protected characteristic (known as discrimination by perception)
• you are connected to someone with that protected characteristic (known as discrimination by association).

For example: an employee tells their employer that they intend to transition. Their employer alters their role against their wishes to avoid them having contact with clients.

The comparator is a person who is materially similar in other aspects but does not have the protected characteristic (“is not trans”). 

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination happens when a policy applies in the same way for everybody but disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, and you are disadvantaged as part of this group. This is unlawful unless the person or organisation applying the policy can show that there is a good reason for the policy. This is known as objective justification .

For example: an airport has a general policy of searching passengers according to their sex. Everyone travelling needs to follow the same security procedures and processes, but it makes transgender travellers feel uncomfortable. This could be indirect discrimination, so the airport reviews its policy and changes it so that any passenger may ask to be searched by a staff member of either sex and have a private search, out of view of other passengers. 

Harassment is unwanted behaviour connected with a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating a degrading, humiliating, hostile, intimidating or offensive environment.

For example: a transgender person is having a drink in a pub with friends and is referred to by the bar staff as “it” and mocked for their appearance.

Victimisation

Victimisation is when you are treated badly because you have made a complaint of gender-reassignment discrimination under the Equality Act or are supporting someone who has made a complaint of gender-reassignment discrimination. For example:

For example: a person proposing to undergo gender reassignment is being harassed by a colleague at work. He makes a complaint about the way his colleague is treating him and is sacked.

The Equality Act also provides that if a person is absent from work because of gender-reassignment treatment, their employer cannot treat them worse than they would be treated if absent for illness or injury. 

Does a person have to be under medical supervision?

No. This was explicitly removed from the definition in 2010. Gender reassignment can be a personal process. 

Must they have a gender-recognition certificate or be in the process of applying for one?

No. The protected characteristic is defined without reference to the Gender Recognition Act.

Do they have to have made a firm decision to transition? 

No. Protection against discrimination and harassment attaches to a person who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process).

During the passage of the Equality Act, the Solicitor General stated in Parliament: 

“Gender reassignment, as defined, is a personal process, so there is no question of having to do something medical, let alone surgical, to fit the definition. “Someone who was driven by a characteristic would be in the process of gender reassignment, however intermittently it manifested itself.  “At what point [proposing to undergo] amounts to ‘considering undergoing’ a gender reassignment is pretty unclear. However, proposing’ suggests a more definite decision point, at which the person’s protected characteristic would immediately come into being. There are lots of ways in which that can be manifested – for instance, by making their intention known. Even if they do not take a single further step, they will be protected straight away. Alternatively, a person might start to dress, or behave, like someone who is changing their gender or is living in an identity of the opposite sex. That too, would mean they were protected. If an employer is notified of that proposal, they will have a clear obligation not to discriminate against them.” 

In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover , a male employee told his employer that he was “gender fluid” and thought of himself as “part of a spectrum, transitioning from the male to the female gender identity”. He said to his line manager: “I have no plans for surgical transition.” He started wearing women’s clothing to work, asked to be referred to by a woman’s name and raised a question about which toilets he should use. The Employment Tribunal concluded that he was covered by the protected characteristic. 

Can children have the protected characteristic? 

Yes. In the case of AA, AK & Ors v NHS England , NHS England argued that children who are waiting for assessment by the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) do not have the protected characteristic as they have not yet reached the stage of proposing to transition. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. It noted that the definition of “gender reassignment” does not require medical intervention and can include actions such as changing “one’s name and/or how one dresses or does one’s hair”.

The court concluded:

“There is no reason of principle why a child could not satisfy the definition in s.7 provided they have taken a settled decision to adopt some aspect of the identity of the other gender.”

It noted that the decision did not have to be permanent. 

Is “Gillick competence” relevant to the protected characteristic?

No. “Gillick competence” refers to the set of criteria that are used for establishing whether a child has the capacity to provide consent for medical treatment, based on whether they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand it.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (that is, being able to bring a claim for gender-reassignment discrimination) does not depend on having any diagnosis or medical treatment. Therefore Gillick competence is not relevant to the Equality Act criteria. 

No. There is nothing in the Equality Act which means that people with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” need to be treated in a particular way, or differently from people without the characteristic. 

Article 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights protect the fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. 

In the case of Forstater v CGDE [2021] it was established that the belief that men are male and women are female, and that this cannot change and is important, is protected under Article 9 and in relation to belief discrimination in the Equality Act. 

This means that employers and service providers must not harass or discriminate against people because they recognise that “transwomen” are men and “transmen” are women. Employers and service providers cannot require people to believe that someone has changed sex, or impose a blanket constraint on expressing their belief. 

No. “Misgendering” is not defined or outlawed by the Equality Act. 

In general, people who object to “misgendering” mean any reference to a person who identifies as transgender by words that relate to their sex. This can include using the words woman, female, madam, lady, daughter, wife, mother, she, her and so on about someone who identifies as a “transman”, or man, male, sir, gentleman, son, husband, father, he, him and so on about someone who identifies as a “transwoman”. 

Any form of words may be harassment, but this depends on the circumstances and the purpose and effect of the behaviour. Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person.   An employment tribunal would also consider:

• that person’s perception
• the other circumstances of the case
• whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

Tribunals have emphasised that when judging harassment context is everything, and warned against a culture of hypersensitivity to the perception of alleged victims.

Employment tribunal judgments

As Lord Justice Nicholas Underhill found in Dhellwal v Richmond Pharmacology [2009], a case decided under the Race Relations Act:

“What the tribunal is required to consider is whether, if the claimant has experienced those feelings or perceptions, it was reasonable for her to do so. Thus if, for example, the tribunal believes that the claimant was unreasonably prone to take offence, then, even if she did genuinely feel her dignity to have been violated, there will have been no harassment within the meaning of the section.”

In the Forstater case, the employment appeal tribunal said that it was not proportionate to “impose a requirement on the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman to avoid harassment”. It said that:

“ Whilst the Claimant’s belief, and her expression of them by refusing to refer to a trans person by their preferred pronoun, or by refusing to accept that a person is of the acquired gender stated on a GRC, could amount to unlawful harassment in some circumstances, it would not always have that effect. In our judgment, it is not open to the Tribunal to impose in effect a blanket restriction on a person not to express those views irrespective of those circumstances.”

In the case of de Souza v Primark Stores [2017] , a transgender claimant who went by the name of Alexandra, but whose legal name was Alexander, was found to have been harassed by colleagues who made a point of using the male form of name when they knew he did not want them to, but not by being issued with a “new starter” badge that showed his legal name. 

In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover [2020] , a male claimant who wore women’s clothing  to work was judged to have been exposed to harassment by colleagues saying “What the hell is that?”, “So what’s going on? Are you going to have your bits chopped off?”, “Is this for Halloween?” and referring to the claimant as “it”. 

Not necessarily. 

A person can be “outed” as transgender in two different ways: 

• Their sex is commonly known and recorded, but their transsexualism is not (for example a man who cross-dresses at the weekend and is considering transitioning is “outed” at work by someone who has seen them at a social event).
• They are disappointed in the expectation of being treated as one sex when they are actually the other (for example a person who identifies as a “trans woman” is referred to as male by a woman in a changing room).

In Grant v HM Land Registry [2011] , which concerned the unwanted disclosure that an employee was gay, Lord Justice Elias found that this did not amount to harassment: 

“Furthermore, even if in fact the disclosure was unwanted, and the claimant was upset by it, the effect cannot amount to a violation of dignity, nor can it properly be described as creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment.”

The perception (or hope) of transgender people that they “pass” as the opposite sex is often not realistic. Their sex is not in fact hidden, but is politely ignored by some people in some situations. It is not reasonable for them to be offended by other people recognising their sex, particularly if they are seeking access to a single-sex service. Acknowledging someone’s sex, particularly where there is a good reason, is unlikely to be harassment. 

In the first-instance case of Chapman v Essex Police , a transgender police officer felt embarrassed and upset when a police control-room operator double-checked his identity over the radio because his male voice did not match the female name that the operator could see. The tribunal did not uphold a complaint of harassment, finding that the claimant was “too sensitive in the circumstances”.

Yes, but those policies must be proportionate. Employers cannot have blanket policies against “misgendering”, but can have specific policies concerning how staff should refer to transgender people in particular situations. Organisations should recognise that these policies constrain the expression of belief, and therefore they should seek to achieve their specific aims in the least intrusive way possible.

When determining whether an objection to a belief being expressed is justified, a court will undertake a balancing exercise. This test is set out in the case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury :

• Is the objective the organisation seeks to achieve sufficiently important to justify the limitation of the right in question?
• Is the limitation rationally connected to that objective?
• Is a less intrusive limitation possible that does not undermine the achievement of the objective in question?
• Does the importance of the objective outweigh the severity of the limitation on the rights of the person concerned?

For example: 

• A company provides a specialist dress service to transsexual and transvestites. The men who use the service expect to be called “she” and “her” and referred to as Madam. It is justified for the employer to train and require staff to use this language when serving customers. 
• Staff at a full-service restaurant greet customers as “Sir” and “Madam” as they arrive. The restaurant’s policy is that staff should use the terms which appear most appropriate based on gendered appearance, and to defer to customer preference if one is expressed. This is justified by the aim of creating the service and ambience that the restaurant owners seek to provide. 
• A public body assesses claimants for medical benefits, including individuals with mental-health conditions. It directs its staff to refer to claimants using the terms which the claimants prefer, including using opposite-sex pronouns when requested, in order to make them feel comfortable. However, it recognises that in recording medical information, assessors must be able to be accurate about claimants’ sex. This is justified by the aim of providing a service that is accessible and effective for vulnerable clients. 

The case of David Mackereth v AMP and DWP concerned a doctor who lost his job undertaking claimant health assessments for the Department for Work and Pensions because he refused to comply with its policy on using claimants’ preferred pronouns. The employer’s policy was found not to have amounted to unlawful harassment or discrimination against Dr Mackereth, in the particular circumstances of his job. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that “misgendering” would not necessarily be harassment: 

“Such behaviour may well provide grounds for a complaint of discrimination or harassment but, as the EAT in Forstater made clear, that will be a fact-specific question to be determined in light of all the circumstances of the particular case.”

Relevant considerations

In Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] Mrs Justice Eady sets out the considerations that are likely to be relevant considering whether constraining the expression of a belief (“manifestation”)  in order to avoid harassment or discrimination is justified in the context of employment. These include:

• the content of the manifestation
• the tone used
• the extent of the manifestation
• the worker’s understanding of the likely audience
• the extent and nature of the intrusion on the rights of others, and any consequential impact on the employer’s ability to run its business
• whether the worker has made clear that the views expressed are personal, or whether they might be seen as representing the views of the employer, and whether that might present a reputational risk
• whether there is a potential power imbalance given the nature of the worker’s position or role and that of those whose rights are intruded upon;
• the nature of the employer’s business, in particular where there is a potential impact on vulnerable service users or clients
• whether the limitation imposed is the least intrusive measure open to the employer.

Employers cannot force employees to believe that people can change sex, or prevent them expressing that lack of belief except in limited circumstances. So what should employers do to protect transgender people from harassment, and themselves from liability? 

They should have ordinary policies against bullying and harassment, including jokes, name-calling, humiliation, exclusion and singling people out for different treatment.

They should seek to avoid putting people in situations they will reasonably experience as hostile or humiliating.

Ambiguous rules put people in situations where it is reasonable to feel offended. For example, an employer provides “female” toilets, showers and changing rooms, but allows some male staff in because they identify as transgender. This creates a hostile environment: 

• female staff are surprised, shocked, humiliated and upset to find themselves sharing with a colleague of the opposite sex
• male staff members who want people to treat them as women may be challenged or face comments that are intended to intimidate, humiliate or degrade them.

This was the situation faced by the Sheffield Hospital Trust , which had a policy that transgender staff could use opposite-sex facilities. It had to deal with the fall-out when women complained about seeing a half-naked male in their changing room and the male staff member sued for harassment after being questioned about this.

Rather than putting these two groups of people together in a environment where both will reasonably feel harassed, employers should have clear rules about facilities that are single-sex, and also, where possible, provide a unisex alternative for anyone who needs it, including people who feel that they have “transitioned away from their sex” and therefore do not wish to use single-sex facilities shared with members of their own sex. The EHRC last year provided guidance on single-sex services which encouraged clear rules and policies.

It should be made clear to people who have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” that having this characteristic does not mean it is reasonable for them to expect others to believe or pretend to believe they have changed sex, or for them to be allowed to break (or expect to be an exception to) rules that aim to protect the dignity and privacy of others. 

If a person breaks a clear rule against entering a space provided for the opposite sex, it is not reasonable for them to feel offended when this is pointed out. 

No. It would not be lawful for schools to have a policy that forbids, punishes or denigrates pupils who use clear words about the sex of other people (such as pronouns, but also boy/girl, male/female and so on), nor to require pupils to refer to some classmates as if they were the opposite sex.

• To do so constrains the freedom of speech of pupils in a way that is unjustified and discriminates against them on the basis of belief. 
• It is inconsistent with schools’ safeguarding duty of care , and with their record-keeping responsibilities, for staff to misrepresent the sex of pupils in their records or in introducing them to their peers. 
• In order to explain and enforce sex-based rules designed to keep children safe (such as who is allowed in which showers, toilets, dormitories or sports teams), schools must be able to use clear and unequivocal language. 
• It is not reasonable to expect that a child at school, or transferring between schools, can avoid being “outed” as the sex that they are . 

We do not think that any policy which tells teachers or pupils to lie about the sex of pupils, constrains them from using clear sex-based language or treats them detrimentally if they do would pass the proportionality test. It is an unreasonable constraint on speech that is neither required nor justified in order to avoid discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. 

Schools form part of a system that is regulated at a national level. In England that system is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make this legal situation clear across the English school system by issuing the long-awaited DfE guidance. 

Do you have a question you’d like us to answer?

• Email this page

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• ED&I at Cambridge
• Public Equality Duties & Protected Characteristics
• Gender Reassignment
• Guidance on Gender Reassignment for Staff

Equality, Diversity & Inclusion

• Equality Reports
• ED&I at Cambridge overview
• College Equality Policies
• Combined Equality Scheme
• Equality Impact Assessments
• Equal Opportunities Policy
• Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Committee
• Gender Equality Steering Group ( GESG )
• Public Equality Duties & Protected Characteristics overview
• Gender Reassignment overview
• Guidance on Gender Reassignment for Staff overview

What is gender reassignment

• Protections in law
• Medical or surgical procedures
• Supporting Staff
• Information records and privacy
• Access to facilities
• Bullying and harassment
• Sources of information and guidance
• Transition support checklist
• Marriage and Civil Partnership
• Pregnancy and Maternity
• Religion or Belief
• Sexual Orientation overview
• Research Resources
• Local Support Groups
• Resources for Managers
• LGB&T Glossary
• Direct Discrimination
• Indirect Discrimination
• Racial harassment
• Victimisation
• Perceptive Discrimination
• Associative Discrimination
• Third-Party Harassment
• Positive Action
• Initiatives overview
• Academic Career Pathways CV Scheme
• Being LGBTQ+ in Cambridge: A review of the experiences and support of staff at the University of Cambridge
• Faith and Belief in Practice overview
• Facilities for Reflection or Prayer
• Guidance on Religion or Belief for Staff 2013
• College Chaplaincies
• Overview of Buddhism
• Overview of Christianity
• Overview of Hinduism
• Overview of Islam
• Overview of Judaism
• Overview of Sikhism
• Directory of Faith and Belief Communities in Cambridge overview
• Church of England
• United Reformed Church and Church of Scotland
• Festival of Wellbeing
• George Bridgetower Essay Prize
• Returning Carers Fund
• Supporting Parents and Carers @ Cambridge
• The Meaning of Success
• University Diversity Fund
• UDF Successful Projects
• WiSETI overview
• Cake and Careers
• WiSETI Activities overview
• WiSETI/Schlumberger Annual Lectures overview
• Past Lectures
• Events overview
• Recorded Events
• Equality Charters overview
• Athena Swan at Cambridge
• Race Equality Charter
• Training overview
• Equality & Diversity Online Training
• Understanding Unconscious / Implicit Bias
• Networks overview
• Disabled Staff Network
• LGBTQ+ Network overview
• Advice and Support
• Promoting Respect and Dignity
• Resources & Links
• Staff Development and Benefits
• REN: Race Equality Network
• Supporting Parents and Carers @ Cambridge Network
• Women's Staff Network overview
• Support, Information and Local Women's Organisations
• Personal Development
• Advice, Help and Support
• Release Time for Staff Diversity Networks overview
• Information for staff members
• For Managers
• Resources overview
• Race Equality Week 2024 : 5th - 11th February
• COVID - Inclusion Resources
• Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
• ED&I at Cambridge
• Public Equality Duties & Protected Characteristics

A decision to undertake gender reassignment is made when an individual feels that his or her gender at birth does not match their gender identity. This is called ‘gender dysphoria’ and is a recognised medical condition.

Gender reassignment refers to individuals, whether staff, who either:

• Have undergone, intend to undergo or are currently undergoing gender reassignment (medical and surgical treatment to alter the body).
• Do not intend to undergo medical treatment but wish to live permanently in a different gender from their gender at birth.

‘Transition’ refers to the process and/or the period of time during which gender reassignment occurs (with or without medical intervention).

Not all people who undertake gender reassignment decide to undergo medical or surgical treatment to alter the body. However, some do and this process may take several years. Additionally, there is a process by which a person can obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate , which changes their legal gender.

People who have undertaken gender reassignment are sometimes referred to as Transgender or Trans (see glossary ).

Transgender and sexual orientation

It should be noted that sexual orientation and transgender are not inter-related. It is incorrect to assume that someone who undertakes gender reassignment is lesbian or gay or that his or her sexual orientation will change after gender reassignment. However, historically the campaigns advocating equality for both transgender and lesbian, gay and bisexual communities have often been associated with each other. As a result, the University's staff and student support networks have established diversity networks that include both Sexual Orientation and Transgender groups.

• 20 Jun Women's Staff Network Event

View all events

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

'Shifting sands': six legal views on the transgender debate

Lawyers examine possible consequences of the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act

A year ago, Theresa May announced that the government was seeking to “streamline and demedicalise” the process of changing gender in the UK because “being trans is not an illness”.

In July this year the government opened a public consultation on proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that would allow people to “self-ID”, meaning that a person seeking to legally change their gender would no longer have to undergo a long legal and medical process. The consultation closes on Friday.

Here, seven lawyers examine the possible consequences to the proposed changes.

Julian Norman: ‘ Shifting legal sands are poor foundation for change’

The background to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) was the case of Christine Goodwin , a trans woman, who took the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights. She argued that the government’s failure to recognise her in law as a woman breached article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which covers respect for one’s private and family life.

The court upheld the complaint, pointing out that there was no threat of “overturning the entire system” given that there were estimated to be only 2,000-5,000 transsexuals in the UK, and that although there would be legal repercussions these were not insurmountable “if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals”.

The government responded by introducing the GRA. To acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC) an applicant must provide evidence of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a condition of feeling one’s gender identity to be opposite to that assigned at birth. There are, therefore, two ways to be a man or woman in law: biologically by birth or legally by acquisition of a GRC.

Six years after the GRA came the Equality Act 2010, which introduced exemptions to protect single-sex services. However, it is unclear whether the exemptions apply to those who have become legally male or female through acquisition of a GRC. The website of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission stated until last Friday that it would be unlawful to exclude from female-only services someone who was legally but not biologically female. It is now unhelpfully ambiguous .

These shifting legal sands are a poor foundation for change, and the definition of transgender has expanded hugely since 2004. Stonewall’s definition describes it as anybody whose innate sense of their own gender does not correlate to the culturally determined expressions associated with their sex at birth, whether or not they intend to make permanent physical changes.

The proposals upon which the government is consulting therefore envisage that a GRC, and thereby the protected characteristic of sex, should be granted through statutory declaration to a vastly wider group than was contemplated by the original legislation, including to those who are not transsexual.

Some type of reform is clearly needed. The law must protect anyone who is within the widening transgender spectrum – from gender non-conforming at one end to transsexual at the other, and encompassing non-binary and gender-fluid identities. Everyone on that spectrum must have proper protection from victimisation, and their access to education, employment, healthcare, housing and so on must be unimpeded.

At the same time, service providers must be the ones to choose whether to provide single-sex or single-gender services, and funding must be ringfenced for a certain number to be single sex, balancing the needs of both demographics without placing them in conflict.

To alleviate the growing concerns over sexual predators identifying as women, those who have committed specified crimes of male violence against women should be barred from acquiring a new birth certificate during the rehabilitation period specified in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Fundamentally, any change to the law must be workable and coherent, its aims clearly delineated and its implementation accessible. The current interplay between the GRA and Equality Act does not meet that description. Neither service providers nor trans people should have to navigate a legal landscape littered with obstacles. Reform must provide clarity and not further ambiguity.

Julian Norman is a barrister at Drystone Chambers and the chair of FiLiA, a women’s rights charity

Prof Alex Sharpe: ‘ Parliament cannot have intended such absurdity’

Reforms making it easier for trans people to have their gender identities legally recognised will have no impact on existing rights of service providers to exclude trans women from women-only spaces. Under the Equality Act, all trans people covered by the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” are protected against discrimination, subject only to specific sex-based exceptions that permit discrimination in the context of women-only spaces where it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. The government has made clear it does not intend to change these Equality Act provisions.

Those opposing reform of the GRA argue that trans women holding a gender recognition certificate, and who bring a discrimination claim on the basis of gender reassignment, are not covered by the exceptions relating to this protected characteristic because they are, by virtue of the GRA, legally female. Therefore, they argue, expanding the number of people capable of acquiring a GRC will necessarily reduce, if not extinguish, occasions where the sex-based exceptions might be invoked.

The legal correctness of this argument is dubious. Furthermore, if it is correct, it has next to no practical significance because the exceptions are more or less unenforceable outside the prison context, where provision already exists to exclude (cis and trans) women from the female estate where their security profile renders them a danger to other inmates . This is because circumstances where a court might be satisfied exclusion from women-only spaces meets a threshold of proportionality and legitimacy is vanishingly small.

If parliament intended to remove GRC holders from the scope of permitted discrimination, it could have drafted the Equality Act accordingly and in clear terms. Yet there is nothing in the act, its explanatory notes or the parliamentary debates preceding its enactment to suggest the exceptions do not apply to GRC holders. Trans people covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment enjoy a set of benefits and detriments under the act. There is no reason to think GRC holders were intended to bear a different relationship to other trans people in the context of this balancing of rights.

Opponents of reform claim that under the Equality Act trans women who do not hold a GRC should legally be considered male when pursuing a discrimination claim. If this is legally correct, which I dispute here , the effect would be to doom practically all trans women’s discrimination claims to failure. Yet they also claim the exceptions do not apply to trans women with a GRC because they are sex-based. If both these claims are correct, the Equality Act exceptions excluding trans women from women-only spaces would be rendered meaningless, as they would apply to no one. Parliament cannot have intended such absurdity.

Finally, the GRA, while stating that a GRC recognises a successful applicant’s gender identity “for all legal purposes”, qualifies the scope of this recognition. Crucially, it does so not only in relation to matters of competitive sport and parental status in the context of existing children, but because recognition is subject to “any other enactment or any subordinate legislation”. In other words, if there is conflict between the GRA and subsequent legislation, as opponents of reform contend, the Equality Act trumps the GRA to the extent of conflict.

Alex Sharpe is a law professor at Keele University and a barrister at Garden Court Chambers in London

Rosa Freedman and Rosemary Auchmuty: ‘ Reforms must take into account the needs of all people affected’

Sex and gender are different, and the law treats them as categories distinct from one another. Sex is a protected characteristic in law, whereas gender identity currently is not. Although trans advocates conflate sex and gender or use them interchangeably, we insist that only by maintaining them as separate categories will we be able to reconcile the concerns of both those who identify as transgender and those who are women as defined and protected by the Equality Act.

Self-identification would remove the pathologisation of transgender – in line with the World Health Organization view – and the long, demoralising process of obtaining a GRC. Our proposal is that the self-identification process should be a sworn affidavit in which a person declares whether they identify their gender as male, female or non-binary, with the affidavit leading to a certificate explaining why your gender is different to the sex on your birth certificate. Such a process would be similar to naturalisation.

It should meet the concerns of all transgender individuals including the sizeable and growing group of people who do not want to be labelled as either gender, by creating an X gender as they have done in the Netherlands.

The effect of this process would be to allow people to choose what gender they are legally recognised as, while also maintaining sex as a separate category protected by law. That would ensure the protection of (biological) women’s rights in relation to sex-segregated spaces and services, as protected by the Equality Act where necessary and proportionate. We set out some areas where it is crucial to maintain sex-segregation, many of which already exist as exemptions in the Equalities Act, but where a conflation of gender identity and biological sex is already undermining their existence in reality.

Medical treatment and research is concerned with biology, and there are some treatments that are sex-specific. Sex-segregated spaces would also remain where women need protection from male bodies, such as in prisons, refuges and rape crisis centres, regardless of a person’s gender identity.

Statistics gathered would ask about both sex and gender, enabling the data to continue to be useful for the purposes of planning and understanding populations and demographics. To enable women to continue to participate in competitive sports, sex-segregation would be maintained. Protections would continue for religion, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, taking into account the needs of religious people to have sex-segregated spaces.

Maintaining the legal distinction between gender identity and sex will also ensure that women-only spaces – women’s centres, the Girl Guides, ladies’ swimming ponds – that were set up to compensate for women’s longstanding political, social and economic disadvantage are sex-segregated. Those spaces also include women-only shortlists, schemes to boost women’s representation on company boards and as directors, and woman of the year awards in business and Stem (science, technology engineering and maths) sectors overwhelmingly dominated by men.

Reforms to the process of obtaining legal recognition must take into account the needs of all people affected and ensure that rights are protected for all concerned. We propose that maintaining the distinction between sex and gender in law will allow for self-identification while also protecting women’s rights.

Professor Rosa Freedman is Global Development Division director at the University of Reading’s School of Law. Rosemary Auchmuty is a professor at the University of Reading’s School of Law, specialising in gender, sexuality, property law, and legal history

Stephen Whittle: ‘ Gender recognition only provides a limited legal recognition’

Currently, UK law only allows trans people with a prior diagnosis of gender dysphoria to legally change their gender. This puts the GRA at odds with the World Health Organization, which no longer classifies gender dysphoria as a mental illness, reflecting that trans people’s understanding of their own gender identities are sound and, accordingly, should be respected as valid.

However, some feminists claim a proposal to reform the GRA to let people change their legal gender by self-declaration will allow “male-bodied people” access to refuges for abused women. They argue that making it easier for trans people to change their gender on their birth certificate, or as they put it “on demand … with no … changes to his body”, is “dangerous and irrational” and will put “women, girls and the future of female-only services at risk”.

Some women’s groups claim their beef is not with trans people but with men who will obtain a new birth certificate so as to gain entry into women’s spaces. Others argue this is about trans women, as it will allow them to retain their penis while gaining legal entry into women’s spaces. Another group argue that trans women can never become women, they are always (dangerous) men.

These arguments are entirely unfounded. Gender recognition only provides a limited legal recognition of a person’s acquired gender, primarily for medical privacy, marriage and pension access.

Ireland, Argentina, Belgium, California, Columbia, Portugal, Denmark, Norway and Malta all allow self-determination for legal gender recognition. As yet unpublished research by the trans rights group Press for Change, for the gender recognition consultation, shows that in these countries there has not been the feminist backlash to this legal change that we have seen here in the UK. The difference appears to be that in the UK we have the Equality Act providing employment protection and access to gender reassignment treatment on the NHS.

Women fear the impact of any change of the GRA on single-sex services. The Equality Act does, however, provide single-sex services with the ability to exclude trans people if that is a legitimate and proportionate response to the service needs. This is a fair balance that has worked well and it will not change, even if the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is modernised.

Stephen Whittle is professor of equalities law at Manchester Law School and a founder of the trans campaign group Press for Change

Maureen O’Hara: ‘ Wishful thinking is not a good foundation for law’

Enabling individuals to change their gender in law by a process of self-declaration would have profound implications for the safeguarding of children, women and vulnerable adults. This is not because transgender people as such represent a safeguarding threat. It is because empirical evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are male, and that persistent sex offenders are often skilled manipulators who go to great lengths to gain access to those they wish to abuse. One way they can do this is by claiming to identify as women, either to gain access to single-sex spaces or to take up roles which are normally reserved to women for safeguarding reasons.

In their submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into transgender equality both the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists and the British Psychological Society stated that some male sex offenders claim to identify as women as a means of making it easier to commit sexual offences against women and children. The British Psychological Society warned of the need to be “extremely cautious of setting law and policy such that some of the most dangerous people in society have greater latitude”.

Ministry of Justice figures suggest there are 60 sex offenders among an estimated 125 known transgender offenders in the prison estate in England and Wales. Of these 60, 29 have convictions for sexual offences relating to children. These figures do not include the number of transgender prisoners who have not made the authorities aware of their gender status.

Assessment of risk is at the heart of good preventative safeguarding practice. Under the present GRA, gender reassignment requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. However, self-declaration would remove all assessment and gatekeeping mechanisms from the reassignment process.

The Equality Act 2010 creates exemptions under which it is possible to exclude people who have undergone gender reassignment from single-sex spaces. The government has stated its intention to maintain these exemptions. However, the operation of the Equality Act and the GRA are interdependent, and the effectiveness of the exemptions will in practice depend on the clarity with which any reforms to the GRA distinguish between biological sex and gender.

The current use of de facto self-declaration by some organisation makes some of the harmful effects of introducing it into law already foreseeable. The Prison Service is housing transgender sex offenders in female prisons, many of whom do not have a GRC and are therefore legally male. One example is Karen White, formerly known as Stephen Wood, who was recently convicted of sexually assaulting two women while on remand at HMP New Hall.

Girl Guides now accept biological males who self-identify as women as guide leaders. If self-declaration is introduced without safeguards, all organisations working with children could be required to adopt similar policies. We know that child sexual abusers seek out positions that allow them greater access to children.

It is wishful thinking to assume that some would not complete a statutory declaration form to change their legal gender if they believed this would make it easier to reach children they wish to abuse. Wishful thinking is not a good foundation for law.

Maureen O’Hara is a solicitor and a senior law lecturer at Coventry University

Peter Dunne: ‘ The legal invisibility of transgender youth is deeply problematic’

The GRA currently excludes transgender minors. The legislation states that only “[a] person of either gender who is aged at least 18” can apply for a GRC. In its recent consultation, the government has not proposed to extend legal recognition to children and young adults.

The legal invisibility of transgender youth is deeply problematic, particularly for those many young people who, prior to becoming legal adults, begin a process of social and medical transition to their preferred gender. These individuals find themselves in a somewhat contradictory position whereby, although public sector bodies such as the NHS are facilitating the public expression of their preferred gender, UK law refuses to legitimise their gender identity. This increases the risk that children and adolescents will have their transgender history involuntarily revealed, and that they will be exposed to transphobic abuse.

The absolute exclusion of minors from the GRA contradicts the welfare of transgender children. It is inconsistent with recent recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which advocate respect for gender identity, and it fails, as proposed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe , to ensure “that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration”. The best interests of transgender children are not served by refusing to acknowledge the reality of their lives. On the contrary, there is a growing body of health and social science research which shows that rather than creating harm, affirming transgender children leads to better mental health outcomes.

A majority of European countries that have recently revised their gender recognition laws, including Ireland, Belgium, Malta, Norway and the Netherlands, have expressly included transgender minors. These countries have not adopted a uniform legal model, with many restricting gender recognition to adolescents. However, what is clear is that the UK’s position of continuing to exclude all persons under 18 years from the GRA is now out of step with best practice in Europe.

Consistent with the recent recommendations of the House of Commons transgender inquiry, parliament should amend the GRA to include all individuals over the age of 16 years. Like their adult peers, transgender youth of 16 and above should be able to obtain a GRC through a process of self-declaration of their preferred gender. At the same time, parliament should also make appropriate provision for younger transgender individuals for whom access to gender recognition, through parental consent or Gillick competence would best promote their welfare. Parliament should also ensure that where young persons do not yet feel ready to legally transition, there are sufficient safeguards to allow them to explore their gender identity in a safe, respectful environment.

Peter Dunne is a law lecturer at the University of Bristol

• Transgender
• Equality Act 2010

Most viewed

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Crime, justice and the law
• Your rights and legal support

Discrimination: your rights

Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics').

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• gender reassignment
• being married or in a civil partnership
• being pregnant or on maternity leave
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• religion or belief
• sexual orientation

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination:

• in education
• as a consumer
• when using public services
• when buying or renting property
• as a member or guest of a private club or association

You’re legally protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010 .

You’re also protected from discrimination if:

• you’re associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, for example a family member or friend
• you’ve complained about discrimination or supported someone else’s claim

Action against discrimination

You can do something voluntarily to help people with a protected characteristic. This is called ‘positive action’.

Taking positive action is legal if people with a protected characteristic:

• are at a disadvantage
• have particular needs
• are under-represented in an activity or type of work

Related content

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience

• Business funding & investments
• Joint ventures & business ownership agreements
• Business exit & succession planning
• Business reorganisations
• Company law advice
• Sales, mergers & acquisitions
• Starting a business
• Fixed-price support
• Intellectual property & protection
• GDPR & data protection
• Business contracts & agreements
• Construction law
• Land development
• Sales & acquisitions
• Property finance
• Property litigation
• Agriculture & rural affairs
• Partnerships & business structures
• Agricultural tenancies
• Sales & purchases
• Renewable energy
• Employment disputes
• Difficult employees
• Redundancies & transfers
• Business immigration
• Fixed fee legal support
• Training solutions
• Contractual disputes
• Debt recovery
• Intellectual property disputes
• Partnership & shareholder disputes
• Professional negligence
• Classic car disputes
• Business structures
• Commercial issues
• Business immigration advice
• Data protection & GDPR
• Business premises
• Help for every stage of business
• Starting a relationship
• Prenuptial agreements
• Cohabitation agreements
• Ending a relationship
• Divorce or separation
• Financial issues & agreements
• Transferring a share of your property
• Freeholds & lease extensions
• Country houses, farms & estates
• Buying & selling
• Property disputes
• Creating a will
• Powers of attorney
• Court of Protection & deputyship
• Asset protection & trusts
• Protecting your business interests
• Elderly & vulnerable people
• Inheritance & trust disputes
• Recovering debt
• Negligence & contract disputes
• Senior executive severance or redundancy
• Disputes & tribunals
• Help for every stage of life
• Charities & not-for-profit organisations
• Hospitality & leisure
• Manufacturing & engineering
• Professional practices
• Sports & media
• Why Willans
• Cheltenham head office
• Legal & regulatory info
• Charity & community
• Case studies
• Knowledge hub
• Insights & thinking
• Events & training
• Webinars on catch-up
• Your Life & the Law
• Employment Law Dispatches
• Legal guides
• Our brochure
• Cheltenham: +44 (0)1242 514000
• London: +44 (0)20 3362 0490
• Get in Touch

• Real estate
• Employment & business immigration
• Litigation & dispute resolution
• Global companies doing business in the UK
• Family, relationships & divorce
• Wills, trusts & probate

Let us help you

Contact one of our experts below to find out how we can help you. We’ll aim to respond same working day.

Straight to your inbox

Expertise and advice so you're always one step ahead - sign up to receive the latest legal updates, events & seminar news

Equality Act: gender fluid & non-binary individuals protected

The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against individuals because of their ‘protected characteristics’.

There are nine protected characteristics in total, namely: age, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion or belief, marital status, maternity and pregnancy, and gender reassignment.

The Equality Act 2010 stipulates that a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is: “proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.

It requires that a person should have at least proposed to undergo gender reassignment and whilst no medical intervention is required for an individual to have the protected characteristic, it was accepted that the gender reassignment had to be permanent and longstanding (although not necessarily irrevocable) and therefore did not protect individuals who were gender fluid or non-binary.

However, this may no longer be the case following a landmark ruling at Birmingham Employment Tribunal in Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover. In this case, the tribunal found that a gender fluid engineer who suffered abuse and harassment at work was protected by the Equality Act 2010.

The employee, Rose Taylor, changed the way she presented in 2017. She began to identify as gender fluid and started to wear women’s clothes in work. When she suffered insults and abusive jokes, and struggled with toilet arrangements in the workplace, management failed to support her. She resigned as a result and claimed she suffered harassment and direct discrimination because of gender reassignment and sexual orientation. Jaguar Land Rover argued that being ‘gender fluid or non-binary’ did not fall within the definition of the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ under the Equality Act.

The judge ruled that it was “clear … that gender is a spectrum” and that it was “beyond any doubt” that being non-binary or gender fluid was covered by the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ under the Equality Act. Going further, the judge said gender reassignment “concerns a personal journey and moving a gender identity away from birth sex”.

Jaguar Land Rover could appeal the decision, so it could be reversed, but we await confirmation of this. As the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover was heard at an employment tribunal it does not technically establish a legal precedent, so isn’t binding, but it is bound to be influential in similar claims and the first step towards a future precedent.

This case is the first to extend the scope of protection afforded under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act, but it is not the first time the protections of the Equality Act have been extended by case law.

In the case of Tirkey v Chandok and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that ‘caste’ could be protected by the protected characteristic of race, thus extending the scope of that protected characteristic. It serves as a reminder that equality legislation is not set in stone, and is constantly developing to accommodate and adapt to our ever changing society, and to protect those vulnerable to discrimination.

A senior associate in our employment law team, Jenny has an extensive track record in advising businesses ranging from SMEs to multinational organisations, on the full range of employment-related matters – including TUPE, contractual issues and defending employee relations.

News & insights

Related services

Share this article, resources to help, related articles, mental health & the equality act: tips for employers.

During Mental Health Awareness Week, employers may be thinking about things they can do to support employees suffering with their mental health. Besides the general duty of care that employers…

Jenny Hawrot LLB (Hons)

Employment law changes: a 2024 update

Our employment law & business immigration team have put together a useful timeline to help you and your business keep on top of developments throughout the year. For several years,…

Klára Grmelová MGR (LLM Czech)

Navigating the future: protected beliefs in the workplace

Our employment law & business immigration experts look into the challenges employers can face surrounding protected beliefs. In the past few years, we have witnessed a significant rise in employment…

Matthew Clayton MA LLM (Cantab), CIPP/E

Privacy Overview

Check if you've experienced discrimination

This advice applies to England. See advice for See advice for Northern Ireland , See advice for Scotland , See advice for Wales

If you’ve been treated unfairly or harassed, might have experienced ‘unlawful discrimination’ - this means the discrimination is against the law.

If you want to take action about discrimination, you need to check if what happened is covered by the Equality Act 2010. This is the law that stops employers, businesses and service providers discriminating against you.

There are 3 things you need to check:

You were discriminated against because of something about you like your age or race - these things are called ‘protected characteristics’

The person or organisation that treated you unfairly has a duty not to discriminate against you

What happened meets the definition of a type of discrimination described in the Equality Act

If you work out that you haven’t experienced discrimination under the Equality Act, you might still be able to take action using different laws.

1. Check if it was because of a protected characteristic

It’s unlawful to discriminate against you because of one or more of the 9 protected characteristics.

If you weren’t discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, it’s not discrimination under the Equality Act.

The 9 protected characteristics are:

You must not usually be discriminated against because of:

how old you are 

an age group you’re in - for example young people, millennials or over-60s 

However, sometimes businesses and service providers are allowed to treat you differently because of your age. For example, banks are allowed to set age limits on mortgage lending.

You can check when businesses or services can discriminate against you because of your age .

If you are disabled or have a long-term health condition, you’re protected from discrimination if your impairment meets the Equality Act’s definition of disability.

The Equality Act says you’re disabled if:

you have a physical or mental impairment

the impairment has a substantial and long-term effect on your everyday activities

If you want to make a disability discrimination claim, you’ll need to show your impairment meets the Equality Act’s definition of disability.

Some conditions are automatically treated as a disability under the Equality Act, including cancer and HIV.

Check how to  show you’re disabled under the Equality Act .

Gender reassignment - this means if you're transgender

If you’re transgender, you have the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’.

Gender reassignment means you:

are planning to transition from the sex you were assigned at birth to a different sex

are in the process of transitioning 

have already transitioned

Transitioning could include things like changing your name, pronouns or the way you dress - you don’t need to have had medical treatment.

The Equality Act is from 2010 and it doesn’t reflect the language lots of people use to describe their gender or their transition.

If you’re non-binary

The Equality Act says you only have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if you’re transitioning from one sex to another. It doesn’t mention non-binary people. 

In 2020, a non-binary person successfully argued they had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment at an employment tribunal. 

The judge at the tribunal said the characteristic should include people transitioning away from their assigned sex - even if they aren’t going to transition to a different sex.

Other courts don’t have to follow this decision. This means if you take legal action about discrimination, the judge might decide you don’t have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

If you want to make a complaint or legal claim about discrimination, it’s still worth referencing this case. 

The name of the case is Ms R Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. You can read the full employment tribunal decision on GOV.UK . The judge’s decision about non-binary people is in paragraph 178 of the 'Reasons' document.

Marriage and civil partnership

Your employer must not discriminate against you because you’re married or in a civil partnership.

Work is the only place you’re protected from discrimination because of marriage or civil partnership.

If you’ve separated from your partner, you’re still protected until you legally end your marriage or civil partnership.

If you’re not married or in a civil partnership, you don’t have this protected characteristic - for example, if you’re in an unmarried relationship or you’re divorced.

Since Nisha got married, her manager has stopped giving her weekend shifts and won’t let her do overtime. Her manager said other members of staff need the extra shifts more and her husband should be supporting her financially. This is discrimination because of marriage.

Pregnancy and maternity

You’re protected from maternity and pregnancy discrimination while you’re pregnant. The protection starts as soon as your pregnancy begins.

At work, your protection ends either:

when your maternity leave ends - if you’re entitled to it

2 weeks after your baby is born - if you’re not entitled to maternity leave

Your employer also can’t discriminate against you because you’re planning to take maternity leave, or because you took it in the past. Check your rights while you’re on maternity leave .

Outside of work, your protection ends 26 weeks after your baby is born.

After the protected period ends

If you experience discrimination after you stop being protected from pregnancy discrimination, you might be able to claim sex discrimination.

You must not be discriminated against because of your race. 

The Equality Act says race includes your:

nationality

ethnic or national origins

It can also include other things related to race - like how you talk, the clothes you wear or your hairstyle.

Nationality

Your nationality is the country where you have citizenship. You might be a citizen of more than one country - for example, you could have British and Armenian dual citizenship. 

Ethnic and national origins

Ethnic and national origins can include lots of different things like:

the country or region where you were born or grew up

where your parents or other family members came from

the ethnic group you belong to - for example, if you’re Caribbean, Jewish or Irish Traveller

It’s still race discrimination even if the discrimination isn’t about your actual ethnic or national origins. For example, it’s race discrimination if you’re Bangladeshi and someone uses anti-Pakistani slurs against you.

Religion or belief

You must not be discriminated against if you belong to an organised religion - for example, if you’re Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. This includes smaller religions like Rastafarianism or Paganism.

You also must not be discriminated against for belonging to a specific denomination or sect - for example if you’re Jewish and you’re Orthodox or Liberal.

Your religious beliefs are also protected. For example if you’re Christian, you must not be discriminated against for believing in creationism.

You’re also protected if you don’t have any religion or religious beliefs. For example, you mustn’t be discriminated against for being an atheist. 

Philosophical beliefs

You must not be discriminated against for your philosophical beliefs. It’s up to a court or tribunal to decide what counts as a philosophical belief. 

If you want to show your beliefs are philosophical, you need to show:

you genuinely hold the belief

it’s a moral, ethical, personal or philosophical belief - not an opinion based on facts 

it’s about an important aspect of human life and behaviour

it’s serious and important

it’s worthy of respect in a democratic society and compatible with human dignity

Some things courts have decided are philosophical beliefs include:

belief in climate change

anti-fox hunting beliefs

Some things that courts have decided are not philosophical beliefs include:

believing the Holocaust didn’t happen

being a member of a political party

You must not be discriminated against because of your sex. The Equality Act says your sex means if you’re a man or a woman.

If you’re transgender

Legally, your sex is the sex registered on your birth certificate. 

You can change the sex on your birth certificate if you have a gender recognition certificate. 

Non-binary is not legally recognised as a sex in the UK.

If you’re intersex

Your sex must still be registered as male or female on your birth certificate. Intersex people are not legally recognised in the UK and intersex is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. You can get advice and community support for intersex people on the ICON website .

The Equality Act defines your sexuality as your sexual orientation to men, women or both. 

You must not be discriminated against because you’re lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight. 

If you’re not lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight

The Equality Act is from 2010 and it doesn’t reflect the language lots of people use to describe their sexual orientation. 

If your orientation isn’t covered by the Equality Act, you might still be protected. For example if you’re pansexual, you might be able to claim protection as a bisexual.

If you’re asexual, you’re not currently protected from discrimination as an asexual. However, you might still be protected as lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight - for example if you’re asexual and you’re in a relationship.

If someone discriminates against you because they think you have a protected characteristic

If someone discriminates against you because of a protected characteristic, it might still be discrimination even if you don’t have the characteristic. This is called ‘discrimination by perception’. 

For example, it’s discrimination by perception if a pub refused to serve you and your friend because they thought you were a gay couple, even though you’re not. 

It can be discrimination by perception even if the person knows you don’t have the protected characteristic. For example, it’s discrimination by perception if your colleagues are harassing you by making jokes about you being gay - even though they know you’re not.

Discrimination by perception applies to all protected characteristics except:

pregnancy and maternity

marriage and civil partnerships

This means it’s not discrimination if someone treats you unfairly because they mistakenly think you’re pregnant, married or in a civil partnership.

If someone discriminates against you because of someone else’s protected characteristic

It might still be discrimination - for example, if a social worker treats you unfairly because of your wife and child’s ethnicity. This is called ‘discrimination by association’. 

Discrimination by association applies to all protected characteristics except:

This means it’s not discrimination if someone treats you unfairly because you’re associated with someone who is pregnant, married or in a civil partnership.

2. Check if the person or organisation that treated you unfairly is legally responsible for discrimination

The Equality Act protects you from discrimination in the following contexts:

work - for example your employer or employment agency

education - for example your school, college or university

businesses or service provision - like a shop or a train company

health or care provision - like a hospital or care home

housing provision - like a landlord or estate agent

public service provision - for example the police or your local council

clubs and associations - like a sports club

If someone who works for one of these organisations discriminates against you, the organisation is also responsible for the discrimination. This is called ‘vicarious liability’. For example if your colleague discriminates against you, your colleague and your employer are both legally responsible. 

If a customer or service user discriminates against you

It isn’t usually covered by the Equality Act - unless the business or service could have stopped it happening. For example, it might be unlawful discrimination if someone at your local leisure centre regularly harasses you and the staff don’t do anything to stop it - even though you keep complaining.

3. Check if what happened is a type of discrimination under the Equality Act

The Equality Act describes what sorts of behaviour count as different types of discrimination.

The types of discrimination include direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment.

You need to check if what you experienced counts as one or more of these types of discrimination.

Check what type of discrimination you experienced .

If you’ve experienced unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act

There are things you can do if you’ve experienced discrimination under the Equality Act. Discrimination isn’t a criminal offence - this means you can’t ask the police to investigate it. You’ll need to take action yourself.

You should follow these steps:

Complain to the person or organisation - for example by following their formal complaints procedure

Check if you can get help to solve the problem - for example through mediation or an ombudsman

Take the person or organisation to court - if you can’t solve the problem without going to court

Before you take action about discrimination, you need to decide what outcome you want and the best way to achieve it. Check how to take action about discrimination .

There are time limits for taking legal action about discrimination. If you need to go to court, it’s important to act quickly - the time limits can be as little as 3 months from the date you experienced discrimination. Check what the time limits are .

If what you experienced wasn’t discrimination

You can’t take action using the Equality Act. Check if you have a different type of legal complaint or if you can solve the problem another way. 

check if it was a hate crime

check if it was criminal harassment  

If you’re not sure if you’ve experienced discrimination

You can talk to an adviser. They can’t tell you if you’ve definitely experienced unlawful discrimination, but they can help you work out if your situation might be covered by the Equality Act. 

If they think your situation is covered, you can decide if you want to take action.

You can talk to a Citizens Advice adviser .

You can also contact an Equality Advisory Support Service adviser .

If you’re finding things difficult

Discrimination can have a big impact on your mental health. You should talk to your GP if you’re feeling depressed or anxious. 

You can find other ways to get help with your mental health on the Mind website .

If you need to speak to someone 

You can speak to a trained volunteer at organisations like Samaritans or Shout.

Helpline: 116 123 (Monday to Sunday at any time)

Welsh Language Line: 0808 164 0123 (Monday to Sunday 7pm to 11pm)

Calls to Samaritans are free.

You can find other ways to get in touch with Samaritans on their website .

You can also text 'SHOUT' to 85258 to start a conversation with a trained Shout volunteer. Texts are free, anonymous and confidential from anywhere in the UK.

Help us improve our website

Take 3 minutes to tell us if you found what you needed on our website. Your feedback will help us give millions of people the information they need.

Being trans is no more a ‘contested theory’ than a gay family is a 'pretend' relationship – Vic Valentine

Planned changes to gender identity guidance for schools in England sound like the controversial Section 28 ban on teaching ‘the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’

The UK Government is consulting on new relationships, sex and health education guidance for schools in England. Scotland consulted on their draft guidance about similar issues last year, and we hope to see the result published soon.

Polling just last week found that 60 per cent of people in Britain support pupils being taught about gender identity in an age-appropriate way. Yet, in England, there are proposals that pupils should not be taught the “contested theory of gender identity” , and that instead pupils should only be taught “the facts” around the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the 2010 Equality Act: that it’s unlawful to discriminate against trans people in the workplace, and in the provision of goods, facilities and services. So what exactly are those facts?

The Equality Act says that someone has that protected characteristic if they are “proposing to undergo, undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) for reassigning their sex. This includes changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” This means that those of us who take a range of steps – like changing our names, updating our ID (for example, passports or driving licences), and for some, accessing medical treatments to make our bodies feel more like home – should not face discrimination.

READ MORE: Politicians should not forget trans community are 'ordinary people' too – Vic Valentine

If those are the facts, then what is this “highly contested” theory of gender identity that shouldn’t be taught? There aren’t many clues in the consultatio n. It defines gender identity as “a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or a number of other categories". But how could you possibly explain the definition of “gender reassignment” in the law to school pupils, without explaining why anybody might undergo this kind of process?

Get our weekly opinion newsletter for expert analysis from The Scotsman’s team of columnists

Teachers would have to be able to say something like: “Some people are trans. Unlike most people – who are born either male or female, and who feel at ease with themselves as boys/men or girls/women, respectively – their relationship to their sense of self, and their body, is a little more complicated.”

Explaining the law without talking about gender identity just makes no sense. So, what is the point of this approach? It feels very much like an attempt to signal that being trans is somehow just a “contested subject”, not a fact of life.

LGBT+ rights are under threat as politicians across Europe increasingly use discriminatory language – Vic Valentine

This feels familiar. Section 28 (introduced in 1988, repealed in 2000 in Scotland and 2003 in England and Wales) banned teaching around “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. If these changes happen down south, I’m sure it won’t be long until people feel as uncomfortable with the state suggesting trans people are a “contested theory”, as most now do about this having been the approach to the relationships of gay, lesbian, and bi people in the past.

Who trans people are, who I am, is just that. It is no more a “highly contested and complex subject” than the relationships of gay, lesbian, and bi people were ever “pretended”. These proposals send a harmful message to trans young people, or young people with a trans sibling, parent, or friend. The message being that their lives, families, and relationships are not seen as equal. That is not a message that any government should choose to send.

Vic Valentine is manager of Scottish Trans