gender reassignment uk law

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation

legislation.gov.uk

• Browse Legislation
• New Legislation
• Coronavirus Legislation
• Changes To Legislation

Search Legislation

Equality act 2010, you are here:.

• UK Public General Acts
• Table of Contents
• Previous: Provision
• Next: Provision

Print Options

What version.

• Latest available (Revised)
• Original (As enacted)

Advanced Features

• Show Geographical Extent (e.g. E ngland, W ales, S cotland and N orthern I reland)
• Show Timeline of Changes

Opening Options

• Open whole Act
• Open Act without Schedules
• Open Schedules only

More Resources

• Original: King's Printer Version
• Correction Slip - 24/02/2011

Changes over time for: Section 7

Alternative versions:.

• 01/10/2010 - Amendment

Changes to legislation:

Changes to legislation.

Revised legislation carried on this site may not be fully up to date. Changes and effects are recorded by our editorial team in lists which can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area. Where those effects have yet to be applied to the text of the legislation by the editorial team they are also listed alongside the legislation in the affected provisions. Use the ‘more’ link to open the changes and effects relevant to the provision you are viewing.

Changes and effects yet to be applied to the whole Act associated Parts and Chapters:

Whole provisions yet to be inserted into this Act (including any effects on those provisions):

• s. 40A inserted by 2023 c. 51 s. 1
• s. 120(9) inserted by 2023 c. 51 s. 2(b)
• s. 124A inserted by 2023 c. 51 s. 3

7 Gender reassignment E+W+S

(1) 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.

(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Back to top

Options/Help

Print the whole act.

• PDF The Whole Act
• Web page The Whole Act

Print The Whole Part

• PDF The Whole Part
• Web page The Whole Part

Print The Whole Chapter

• PDF The Whole Chapter
• Web page The Whole Chapter

Print This Section only

• PDF This Section only
• Web page This Section only

You have chosen to open The Whole Act

The Whole Act you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.

Would you like to continue?

• Continue to open

You have chosen to open The Whole Act as a PDF

The Whole Act you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download.

You have chosen to open The Whole Act without Schedules

The Whole Act without Schedules you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.

You have chosen to open The Whole Act without Schedules as a PDF

The Whole Act without Schedules you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download.

You have chosen to open the Whole Act

You have chosen to open the whole act without schedules, you have chosen to open schedules only.

The Schedules you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.

Legislation is available in different versions:

Latest Available (revised): The latest available updated version of the legislation incorporating changes made by subsequent legislation and applied by our editorial team. Changes we have not yet applied to the text, can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area.

Original (As Enacted or Made): The original version of the legislation as it stood when it was enacted or made. No changes have been applied to the text.

See additional information alongside the content

Geographical Extent: Indicates the geographical area that this provision applies to. For further information see ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.

Show Timeline of Changes: See how this legislation has or could change over time. Turning this feature on will show extra navigation options to go to these specific points in time. Return to the latest available version by using the controls above in the What Version box.

Different options to open legislation in order to view more content on screen at once

Explanatory Notes

Text created by the government department responsible for the subject matter of the Act to explain what the Act sets out to achieve and to make the Act accessible to readers who are not legally qualified. Explanatory Notes were introduced in 1999 and accompany all Public Acts except Appropriation, Consolidated Fund, Finance and Consolidation Acts.

Access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item from this tab. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

• the original print PDF of the as enacted version that was used for the print copy
• lists of changes made by and/or affecting this legislation item
• confers power and blanket amendment details
• all formats of all associated documents
• correction slips
• links to related legislation and further information resources

Timeline of Changes

This timeline shows the different points in time where a change occurred. The dates will coincide with the earliest date on which the change (e.g an insertion, a repeal or a substitution) that was applied came into force. The first date in the timeline will usually be the earliest date when the provision came into force. In some cases the first date is 01/02/1991 (or for Northern Ireland legislation 01/01/2006). This date is our basedate. No versions before this date are available. For further information see the Editorial Practice Guide and Glossary under Help.

Use this menu to access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

Click 'View More' or select 'More Resources' tab for additional information including:

• New site design
• Accessibility
• Privacy Notice

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

High court to decide if children can consent to gender reassignment

A landmark test case to establish whether children can give informed consent to medical treatment for gender reassignment begins in the high court this week.

Lawyers acting for Susan Evans, a former psychiatric nurse at the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust, which runs the UK’s only NHS gender identity development service (Gids), and “Mrs A”, the mother of an autistic 15-year-old girl who is on the Gids waiting list, will file papers to commence proceedings in a judicial review brought against the trust and NHS England.

At the heart of the case is the provision of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to young people who wish to transition or are considering doing so.

“We are essentially seeking to say that the provision at the Tavistock for young people up to the age of 18 is illegal because there isn’t valid consent,” said Paul Conrathe, a solicitor with Sinclairslaw, which is representing Evans and the mother.

Providing this treatment – puberty blocking and cross-sex hormones – to any young person who wants them requires, he argues, “a specific order of the court on a case-by-case basis. [The treatment] cannot be delivered as a matter of general approach”. Conrathe suggested the legal action would be “pressing the case of Gillick to its breaking point”.

In 1983, Victoria Gillick, a Roman Catholic mother of 10, challenged the right of doctors to prescribe contraception to girls under the age of 16 without their parents’ permission or even knowledge. Two years later the House of Lords affirmed the doctors’ right, ruling that “the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is proposed”.

But Conrathe said the “Gillick competence” test should not apply when it comes to gender reassignment: “The issue is whether the young person is of sufficient maturity and capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. We say it is a leap too far to think that Gillick as a judgment could apply to this type of scenario, where a young person is being offered a treatment with lifelong consequences when they are at a stage of emotional and mental vulnerability. It simply doesn’t compute, and therefore whatever medical professionals say is consent is not valid in law.”

He acknowledged that the case would break new ground. “I don’t think there has been any case that has tested a policy or practice in this way. There may have been the odd case that has come up but not one that has challenged a health service for making this service available.”

According to her crowdfunding page on the CrowdJustice website, Evans raised concerns about the treatment approach of the Tavistock with its clinical management team.

“The alarm bells began ringing for me when a colleague at the weekly team clinical meeting said that they had seen a young person four times and they were now recommending them for a referral to the endocrinology department to commence hormone therapy,” she writes.

Her actions triggered an internal inquiry in 2004 but Evans left the trust as she felt “nothing really changed”. Her husband, Marcus, resigned as a governor of the trust last February, accusing its management of having an “overvalued belief” in the expertise of the Gids that was “used to dismiss challenge and examination”.

On the CrowdJustice website, Mrs A, the mother of the autistic teenager, said she worried that “no one (let alone my daughter) understands the risks and therefore cannot ensure informed consent is obtained”.

NHS England said it would not comment ahead of the hearing. A spokeswoman for the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust said: “It is not appropriate for us to comment in detail in advance of any proposed legal proceedings. The Gids is one of the longest-established services of its type in the world, with an international reputation for being cautious and considered. Our clinical interventions are laid out in nationally set service specifications. NHS England monitor our service very closely. The service has a high level of reported satisfaction and was rated good by the Care Quality Commission.”

• Transgender
• The Observer
• Young people

Most viewed

The Equality Act 2010, a:gender and me

Emma Dunn is the Chair of a:gender, the cross-government network supporting trans and intersex staff across government. Emma is intersex and identifies as female; her pronouns are she/her or they/them.

The introduction of the new Equality Act on 1 October 2010 was a pioneering moment for trans people everywhere. It brought over 116 pieces of legislation into one single Act and went further than any previous piece of legislation. For the first time, trans people were protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Earlier landmark rulings such as P v S and Cornwall County Council in 1996 and Croft v Royal Mail Group in 2003 remain the prevalent pieces of litigation in gender reassignment law, but the new act saw further milestone decisions such as Bisson v Condor Limited in 2016 and Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover which was only reached in the last few weeks.

In the UK, the National LGBT Survey conducted in 2017 by the Government Equalities Office (GEO) found that over half of all trans respondents (more than 7,000 people) described themselves as non-binary . This made the latter ruling especially important for many of a:gender's members, since it confirmed for the first time that discrimination protections extend to non-binary and genderfluid identities, something which had previously been unclear.

Cases such as these demonstrate the complex challenges facing workplaces in achieving equality and inclusion for trans employees. Our developing understanding of the nuances of both sex and gender means that further challenges will inevitably continue to arise. One of the main obstacles is often a reluctance to cause offence. Employees may be aware of the gaps in their understanding and lack the language to confidently discuss issues with trans colleagues where barriers to inclusion are identified.

Another significant challenge is the lack of specific protection in the Equality Act for intersex people like me. Too often we see that this omission means employers simply fail to consider us, meaning significant numbers of employees face additional obstacles in the workplace (intersex people are thought to form 1.7% of the population, making being intersex about as common as having red hair).

These challenges have not gone unnoticed within the Civil Service. It's one of the reasons that a:gender exists –⁠ the Civil Service were revolutionary when they encouraged a Home Office departmental trans network to evolve into a national cross-government network for trans and intersex employees, able to support their members and provide advice and support to departments and agencies who wanted to be better than the bare minimum required by equality legislation.

Today we can really see the benefit of that foresight –⁠ a:gender have worked with Civil Service HR to formulate a policy package that was launched last year and is now available for departments to adopt which is quite literally pioneering. We believe it is the first policy anywhere in the UK that supports not just trans people but also intersex people and the parents and carers of trans and intersex dependants. This policy also signposts the training and support available from a:gender to increase understanding of the issues facing trans and intersex people and equips managers with the language to confidently discuss potential solutions.

The lesson is clear –⁠ staff networks are a powerful and effective tool for bringing about change. If you are facing challenges or want to learn more, join your network today!

We also welcome Civil Service trans, intersex and ally members in a:gender.

Visit the a:gender website , and download the membership form.

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.

• Society and culture
• Equality, rights and citizenship

The workplace and gender reassignment

This guide gives general advice to civil servants about transsexualism and gender reassignment issues relevant to Civil Service employees.

The Workplace and Gender Reassignment

Between 1996 and 1999, the legal responsibility of employers to protect transsexual employees from discrimination in the workplace was clearly established by a series of changes in legislation and test cases.

Later, the 2004 Gender Recognition Act provided a further milestone in this climate of change affording some transsexual people, but by no means all, legal rights that had previously been denied.

The Equality Act 2010 has cemented gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. There is a public sector duty requiring public authorities to pay due regard to eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation of transsexual staff and service users, to advance equality and to foster good relations between transsexual people and others.

This should be a catalyst for best practice to provide a working environment that meets the needs of transsexual people, supports their aspirations and improves life chances for them and their families.

Removed the PDF attachment as it is out of date and is being updated.

This version incorporates additions and amendments to reflect new terminology. It has been reviewed and endorsed by Civil Service Employee Policy Team and the Civil Service LGB&TI Champion.

First published.

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) .

• Practical Law

Gender reassignment discrimination

Practical law uk practice note 4-503-0801  (approx. 59 pages), get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Legal operations, technology and people management: practice management
• Risk management, governance and ethics: practice compliance
• Discrimination - Employment
• Managing ethics and culture

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/16/new-rshe-guidance-what-it-means-for-sex-education-lessons-in-schools/

New RSHE guidance: What it means for sex education lessons in schools

R elationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) is a subject taught at both primary and secondary school.  

In 2020, Relationships and Sex Education was made compulsory for all secondary school pupils in England and Health Education compulsory for all pupils in state-funded schools.  

Last year, the Prime Minister and Education Secretary brought forward the first review of the curriculum following reports of pupils being taught inappropriate content in RSHE in some schools.  

The review was informed by the advice of an independent panel of experts. The results of the review and updated guidance for consultation has now been published.   

We are now asking for views from parents, schools and others before the guidance is finalised. You can find the consultation here .   

What is new in the updated curriculum?  

Following the panel’s advice, w e’re introducing age limits, to ensure children aren’t being taught about sensitive and complex subjects before they are ready to fully understand them.    

We are also making clear that the concept of gender identity – the sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or a number of other categories   – is highly contested and should not be taught. This is in line with the cautious approach taken in our gu idance on gender questioning children.  

Along with other factors, teaching this theory in the classroom could prompt some children to start to question their gender when they may not have done so otherwise, and is a complex theory for children to understand.   

The facts about biological sex and gender reassignment will still be taught.  

The guidance for schools also contains a new section on transparency with parents, making it absolutely clear that parents have a legal right to know what their children are being taught in RSHE and can request to see teaching materials.   

In addition, we’re seeking views on adding several new subjects to the curriculum, and more detail on others. These include:   

• Suicide prevention  
• Sexual harassment and sexual violence  
• L oneliness  
• The prevalence of 'deepfakes’  
• Healthy behaviours during pregnancy, as well as miscarriage  
• Illegal online behaviours including drug and knife supply  
• The dangers of vaping   
• Menstrual and gynaecological health including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and heavy menstrual bleeding.  

What are the age limits?   

In primary school, we’ve set out that subjects such as the risks about online gaming, social media and scams should not be taught before year 3.   

Puberty shouldn’t be taught before year 4, whilst sex education shouldn’t be taught before year 5, in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth as part of the national curriculum for science.  

In secondary school, issues regarding sexual harassment shouldn’t be taught before year 7, direct references to suicide before year 8 and any explicit discussion of sexual activity before year 9.  

Do schools have to follow the guidance?  

Following the consultation, the guidance will be statutory, which means schools must follow it unless there are exceptional circumstances.   

There is some flexibility w ithin the age ratings, as schools will sometimes need to respond to questions from pupils about age-restricted content, if they come up earlier within their school community.   

In these circumstances, schools are instructed to make sure that teaching is limited to the essential facts without going into unnecessary details, and parents should be informed.  

When will schools start teaching this?  

School s will be able to use the guidance as soon as we publish the final version later this year.   

However, schools will need time to make changes to their curriculum, so we will allow an implementation period before the guidance comes into force.     

What can parents do with these resources once they have been shared?

This guidance has openness with parents at its heart. Parents are not able to veto curriculum content, but they should be able to see what their children are being taught, which gives them the opportunity to raise issues or concerns through the school’s own processes, if they want to.

Parents can also share copyrighted materials they have received from their school more widely under certain circumstances.

If they are not able to understand materials without assistance, parents can share the materials with translators to help them understand the content, on the basis that the material is not shared further.

Copyrighted material can also be shared under the law for so-called ‘fair dealing’ - for the purposes of quotation, criticism or review, which could include sharing for the purpose of making a complaint about the material.

This could consist of sharing with friends, families, faith leaders, lawyers, school organisations, governing bodies and trustees, local authorities, Ofsted and the media.  In each case, the sharing of the material must be proportionate and accompanied by an acknowledgment of the author and its ownership.

Under the same principle, parents can also share relevant extracts of materials with the general public, but except in cases where the material is very small, it is unlikely that it would be lawful to share the entirety of the material.

These principles would apply to any material which is being made available for teaching in schools, even if that material was provided subject to confidentiality restrictions.

Do all children have to learn RSHE?  

Parents still have the right to withdraw their child from sex education, but not from the essential content covered in relationships educatio n.  

You may also be interested in:

• Education Secretary's letter to parents: You have the right to see RSHE lesson material
• Sex education: What is RSHE and can parents access curriculum materials?
• What do children and young people learn in relationship, sex and health education

Tags: age ratings , Gender , Relationships and Sex Education , RSHE , sex ed , Sex education

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date, comments and moderation policy.

• Our Offices
• Fusion Legal

Call us on 0800 024 1976

Gender Reassignment Discrimination – Non-Binary & Gender-Fluid Individuals

Written by Laura Kearsley

Recently, an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled that non-binary or gender-fluid persons can fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act)) in the landmark case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd . This case represents a major development of UK employment laws.

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd

Case background.

Rose Taylor (Claimant) was an engineer at Jaguar Land Rover (Respondent), a position she had held for almost 20 years. In 2017, she began identifying as gender fluid/non-binary (having previously presented herself as a man) and, from this point, usually dressed in women’s clothing.

As a result, she suffered harassment and discrimination from her work colleagues in the form of comments referring to her as wearing a Halloween costume and asking her if she was going to get her “bits chopped off”. Plainly such comments were offensive and unwanted. The Claimant also suffered problems regarding the use of toilet facilities and received little to no support from her managers during this time when she raised complaints about the situation.

The Respondent’s stance appeared to be that if the Claimant was not willing to name the perpetrators, there was nothing it could do to help her. On 7 th August 2017, whilst using the male toilets, the Claimant heard two colleagues talking about her. The first said “ have you seen it ?” and the other replied “ I saw “it” in the atrium ”. When the Claimant reported this to a member of the HR leadership team, that person responded by saying “ well what else would you want them to call you ?”.

The Claimant ultimately resigned from her position at the company and issued claims in the ET of discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment and constructive unfair dismissal, namely that she had no choice but to resign due to the way she had been treated at work.

Jaguar Land Rover argued that because Ms Taylor was a gender-fluid/non-binary person, her claim could not be successful as it did not fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under Section 7 of the Act – which states:

S7 (1) “ 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 is not a requirement for someone to undergo medical treatment in order to be covered by the Act. The Claimant’s legal team referred the ET to comments made in Parliament when the Act was being passed through the Commons back in 2009, in which gender reassignment was said to concern “ a personal move away from one’s birth sex in to a state of one’s choice ”.

The ET found that the Claimant did indeed have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as regardless of how she described herself, she was “on a journey” of transition and did not need to have arrived at the end of the (very broad) spectrum. The ET went on to conclude that the Claimant had been very badly mistreated by her work colleagues, who openly ridiculed her appearance. It noted a lack of support towards the Claimant when she had raised complaints and the Judge noted their surprise in the fact that the Respondent had sought to rely on the ‘statutory’ defence, which is where an argument is advanced that the employer took all reasonable steps to avoid the discrimination from occurring. Quite the contrary was the case here.

Whilst the Respondent had an Equal Opportunities policy, it was unable to actually produce it until the end of the ET hearing and could not evidence that staff were aware of it or had been trained on it. This was of particular concern in view of the fact with circa 50,000 staff (including agency and contractors), the Respondent was one of the biggest employers in the West Midlands with ample HR resource available to it.

ET Judge Hughes stated:

“ Having heard submissions on this point, this employment tribunal considers it appropriate to award aggravated damages in this case because of the egregious way the claimant was treated and because of the insensitive stance taken by the respondent in defending these proceedings.

“We are also minded to consider making recommendations in order to alleviate the claimant’s injury to feelings by ensuring the respondent takes positive steps to avoid this situation arising again .”

The Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant £180,000 in compensation. Given that the Claimant had been able to mitigate her losses and find work quite soon after leaving the Respondent, loss of earnings only formed a moderate part of the award and the bulk comprised value for injury to feelings, aggravated damages and a 20% uplift for the Respondent’s failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice in respect of the Claimant’s grievances.

The primary implication of this case is that S7 of the Act will likely cover those which it was thought not to previously. Whilst this is a first instance decision (and therefore not binding), an appeal is not envisaged and employers need to therefore bear in mind that there is a range of gender identities that their workers may identify as, and that they should be sensitive to these different points of the spectrum.

The case also highlights again the importance of having an appropriate equal opportunities, diversity and inclusion policy and making sure that staff are:

• Aware of it and the implications of breaching it; and
• Trained on it.

Seeking to protect those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should form part of such policies and employers should also ensure that they use the appropriate terminology and guide their staff accordingly. In addition, where complaints are raised they should clearly be dealt with sensitively and promptly.

How Nelsons can help

If you would like any advice in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact a member of our Employment Team in Derby , Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form .

We're here to help.

Main Contact Form

Used on contact page

• Name (required) *
• Phone number (required) *
• Nature of enquiry *
• Tick to accept our privacy notice

Request a document we are storing for you

Join our mailing list to keep up to date with our latest news and events.

Gender Reassignment Discrimination

Browse: Home > Gender Reassignment Discrimination

Gender reassignment discrimination

The Equality Act 2010 (‘the Act’) makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment on the grounds of gender reassignment .

How is ‘ gender reassignment’ defined under the Act?

For the purposes of the Act, ‘ gender reassignment’ covers any person who is “proposing to undergo, 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 ”.

All trans people are protected, i.e. those whose gender identity does not match the gender they were assigned at birth, and who may decide to align their life and physical identity to match their gender identity . The definition includes a man who is making the transition to being a woman and vice versa.

Guidance on the Act makes it clear that changing your gender is a personal rather than a medical process. Therefore, m edical intervention and medical processes are not required for a person to meet the definition and acquire the protection of the Act. To be protected, you need to have at least proposed to change your gender , however, this does not have to be a final decision. People who start the process but then decide not to continue can also be protected.

Transvestites are not protected if they are not also trans (i.e. cross dressing is not motivated by a desire to live with a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth). However, they may be protected if they are discriminated against because they are perceived as being trans (see ‘Direct Discrimination’ below).

If a trans employee has been diagnosed with a condition such as gender dysphoria, then they may also be protected by the disability discrimination provisions of the Act, as long as the other criteria for a disability have been met. Please see our specific page on disability discrimination for more information.

Who is covered by the Act?

The Act applies to all employees (fixed and indefinite term), job applicants, trainees, contract workers, office holders (including company directors and partners), those who are on secondment and the self-employed. The Act covers all areas of employment including recruitment, selection and promotion, the provision of training, the provision of benefits, retirement and occupational pensions.

What is gender reassignment discrimination?

Gender reassignment discrimination is where you are treated unequally because of gender reassignment , perceived gender reassignment or the gender reassignment of someone with whom you associate. The Act has deemed that gender reassignment is a ‘protected characteristic’ and, accordingly, discrimination for this reason is unlawful.

Gender reassignment discrimination can arise in any of four ways:

Such discrimination can apply at interview stage, in the terms upon which you are being offered employment (or indeed whether you are offered employment at all), in promotion and transfer opportunities, when being dismissed or subjected to any other detriment. Therefore, the law is designed to protect trans employees and workers during all aspects of employment. Moreover, you do not need to be employed for a particular period of time in order to bring a claim.

How easy it is to prove discrimination?

The tribunals are well aware that direct evidence of discrimination is rarely forthcoming and it is now readily accepted that discrimination need not be conscious. Some people have an inbuilt and un-recognised prejudice of which they are unaware.

Furthermore, a discriminatory reason for your employer’s conduct need not be the sole or even the principal reason for the discrimination; it is enough that it is a contributing cause in the sense of ‘significant influence’.

However, the Tribunal in most cases will still have to discover what was in the mind of the alleged discriminator, and the onus of proof is on your employer to show that there was no discrimination. In every case it is crucial to enquire why an employee has received less favourable treatment, and whether it was on the grounds of race or some other reason. This may be, for example, because you were not so well qualified for the role. Save in the obvious cases, asking the crucial question of your employer will call for some consideration of the mental process of the alleged discriminator (e.g. your line manager), together with the treatment you received as a consequence.

Accordingly, as direct evidence of a decision to discriminate on racial grounds will seldom be forthcoming, the grounds of the decision or act by your employer would have to be deduced, or inferred, from the surrounding circumstances.

Please find below more detail about the various types of discrimination:

Direct discrimination

This is perhaps the most common type and involves the less favourable treatment of others on grounds of gender reassignment . Direct discrimination also covers ‘associative discrimination’ where a person is discriminated against for associating wit h a trans person , as well as ‘discrimination by perception’ which is the unfair treatment of someone who is perceived to be trans .

For example, the Act protects trans people who choose to cross-dress as part of the process of transitioning to live as their non-birth gender. Conversely, the Act does not protect transvestites who choose to temporarily cross-dress for other reasons. However, a transvestite who is mistakenly perceived as a trans person and discriminated against because they are perceived to be a trans person, this would be discrimination by perception.

You would need to look at how an employer treats a trans employee compared to employees who live with and identify with the gender they were assigned at birth .

The defence of ‘objective justification ’ is not available for direct discrimination .

Indirect discrimination

This is the application of a rule or practice that, on the face of it, applies equally to persons who are not trans but which particularly disadvantages trans people .

An example of indirect discrimination might be where an employer implements a dress code which involves wearing tight fitting clothing, meaning that a trans employee finds it difficult to give the appearance of being the gender with which they identify . Another example might be where an employer runs an ice-breaker asking all employees to bring in childhood photos and then chastises a trans employee for not doing s o (because the employee does not want their colleagues to know that they were brought up as a different gender). It would be irrelevant that the employer does not know that the employee is trans.

Whilst these would be blanket policies, applying to all individuals regardless of gender identification, they particularly disadvantage a trans individual and therefore could give rise to a discrimination claim.

Indirect discrimination can be objectively justified; the onus is on the employer to prove that it the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Harassment is defined as subjecting someone to unwanted conduct that violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It does not matter if the harassment is intentional or unintentional.

Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect of violating someone’s dignity or creating an intimidating environment only if in all the circumstances, including the victim’s perception, it could reasonably be seen as having that effect.

Therefore, the definition of harassment is wide enough to include most types of harassment including abusive language, excessive monitoring of work, excessive criticism of someone’s work etc. However, the concept of the victim’s ‘reasonableness’ may in some cases make it difficult to win such cases.

Harassment doesn’t necessarily have to be directed at an individual or individuals, it can be the general culture of the firm. Examples of this might include the telling and tolerating of trans-phobic jokes around the office and the use of derogatory trans-phobic terms.

Additionally, the Equality Act has deemed that the employer is potentially liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties, i.e. people they don’t employ, such as clients, customers, patients or suppliers. Therefore, if your employer knew or ought to have known that you have been harassed in the course of your employment on at least 2 previous occasions by a third party (not necessarily the same third party or the same form of harassment on each occasion) and has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it happening again, he may be liable under the Equality Act.

Gender reassignment harassment also includes sexual harassment of a trans employee ( see our specific page on sexual harassment).

Victimisation

This is where you are treated less favourably as a result of you having made, tried to make, helped someone else to make or assumed to have made, a complaint or grievance of discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment (this is known as a ‘protected act’) . There is no need to compare your treatment to an employee who has not done a ‘protected act’ .

Some common examples of gender reassignment discrimination

Gender reassignment discrimination often arises in relation to the use of single-sex facilities, such as toilets. It is generally agreed that a trans person should be free to use the facilities for the gender with which they identify, once they start to live full-time as that gender.

Another common example is when an employer treats a trans employee less favourably in relation to absences from work because of gender reassignment compared to other sickness absence. For example, if your employer refuses, without good reason, to let you have time off to undergo treatment for gender reassignment, or pays you less than you would have received if you were off sick, this is likely to amount to direct discrimination.

An other example of direct discrimination might be where a trans person is refused a promotion because of his or her gender reassignment . Other examples might include the harassment of someone because they have a trans partner or family member .

Who is liable under the Act?

Liability for gender reassignment discrimination usually lies with the employer and/or any other employee who is found to have discriminated.

Employers will be liable for the discriminatory acts of employees where those employees are acting in the course of their employment. This is known as vicarious liability. As mentioned above, the employer will also be liable for the acts of third parties in certain circumstances.

Where the acts complained of are done by another employee, it is usually wise to bring the employment tribunal application against both the other employee as well as the employer.

Employers have a defence to a complaint of discrimination based on vicarious liability and third-party harassment if they can prove that they took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the discrimination. It is rare for employers to be able to succeed with this defence, but if they do, in the case of vicarious liability, the claim can continue against the individual employee.

Are there circumstances where gender reassignment discrimination may be lawful?

Gender reassignment discrimination may be lawful where there is an occupational requirement.  Your employer would need to show that the requirement to discriminate is a ‘ proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim ’ .

This might occur when:

In both these examples the employer would need to show that requiring the employee to be (or not be) trans is “crucial” to the role, not just one of many important factors.

There could also be Positive action. This is a voluntary measure which enables employers to provide support or encouragement to persons within a particular group if, during the last 12 months, that group has been disproportionately represented in that area of work. Employers could encourage this group to apply for jobs and even provide special training.

Overseas employment

The Act applies only to establishments in Great Britain.

Pro ving discrimination

It is for the person making the claim to establish that discrimination has occurred. The employee has to prove discrimination by the employer ‘on the balance of probabilities’ .

This means that, although a tribunal might have doubts as to whether the employer discriminated, as long as the tribunal more than half believes that they have it must decide in favour of the employee.

Once an employee has established facts from which it may be presumed that discrimination has occurred, it is up to the employer to prove that no such discrimination has in fact occurred.

It is unusual to find direct evidence of gender reassignment discrimination. Few employers are prepared to admit discrimination and those who are aware of the law may have taken steps to appear to be acting lawfully.

Whether or not discrimination can be proved will often depend on what inferences a tribunal can draw from the primary facts. Where, for example, an employee complains of failure to promote because they are trans, the evidence may point to the possibility of discrimination. In those circumstances the tribunal may look to the employer for an explanation that proves there was no discrimination.

If no such explanation is put forward or if the tribunal finds the supposed explanation inadequate or unsatisfactory , it is open to the tribunal to infer that the discrimination was because of gender reassignment.

Raising a grievance

If you are still in employment and you cannot resolve the matter informally with your line manager, then it is best to first lodge an internal grievance. Your employer will then be obliged to convene a meeting without unreasonable delay to discuss your grievance. You may, however, still be able to bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal whilst you are still employed.

If you have already been dismissed and you think you have been discriminated against, you can lodge a claim for unfair dismissal and/or discrimination in the Employment Tribunal.

An employment tribunal can award one or more of three remedies if it finds that an individual has been a victim of gender reassignment discrimination.

• A recommendation that the employer should take certain steps to remove or reduce the discrimination.

What compensation can you claim for gender reassignment discrimination?

Unlike in unfair dismissal, there is no ceiling on the amount of compensation a tribunal can award for disability discrimination. Compensation normally includes:

– loss of earnings , which can include past or future losses, unpaid holiday, bonuses, stock options or notice pay;

– an award of damages for ‘injury to feelings ‘ (see the injury to feelings compensation guidelines below) . This is to compensate you for the upset, frustration, worry, anxiety, mental distress, fear, grief, anguish, humiliation, unhappiness, stress and depression.

– a personal injury , whether this is due to depression or physical injury (see below);

– aggravated damages. These are awarded in the most serious cases where the behaviour of your employer has aggravated your injury;

– punitive damages . This award is very rare and only in limited circumstances where the compensation itself is an insufficient punishment and your employer’s conduct is very oppressive;

– interest , which can be awarded from the date of the discrimination until the date the Tribunal calculates compensation.

INJURY TO FEELINGS COMPENSATION GUIDELINES

The Court of Appeal have set out 3 bands of compensation guidelines for injury to feelings, depending on the seriousness of the case. These are commonly known as the ” Vento ” guidelines, and from 6th April 2024 they are:

TOP BAND FOR THE MOST SERIOUS CASES: £35,200- £58,700  (although it can exceed this in exceptional cases);

MIDDLE BAND:  £11,700 – £35,200

LOWER BAND FOR LESS SERIOUS CASES (e.g. a one-off or isolated incident of discrimination):  £1,200 – £11,700

Can I also claim personal injury in the employment tribunal due to the discrimination I have received?

As mentioned above, although you cannot bring a standalone personal injury claim in the Employment Tribunal, you can claim compensation for psychiatric or physical injuries which you may have suffered due to the discrimination you have received from your employer.

In most cases, any claim for personal injury within the context of employment law cases relate to psychological injury as opposed to physical injury. This incudes stress and anxiety and injury to feelings, and this has to be attributable to your employers’ conduct rather than for personal reasons. Often, you would need medical evidence to identify whether your injury is indeed caused by reasons of discrimination.

Other than compensation for injury to feelings, as mentioned above, other compensation in the employment tribunal for personal injury is calculated on the following basis:

• “General Damages” (e.g. pain & suffering, and loss of amenity, such as taking part in hobbies or other lifestyle;
• “Special Damages” (this relates to financial compensation, including loss of earnings and other quantifiable sums).

The following factors need to be taken into account when valuing claims of psychiatric injury :

a) the injured person’s ability to cope with life and work;

b) the effect on the injured person’s relationships with family, friends and those with whom he comes into contact;

c) the extent to which treatment would be successful;

d) future vulnerability;

e) prognosis;

f) whether medical help has been sought;

g) whether the injury results from sexual and/or physical abuse and/or breach of trust; and if so, the nature of the relationship between victim and abuser, the nature of the abuse, its duration and the symptoms caused by it.

What am I unable to include as part of my discrimination claim?

You will be unable to claim for the following:

• loss of reputation;
• injury to feelings for each alleged act of discrimination (unless you have discriminated for more than one protected characteristic (such as race, sex, disability etc.);
• an apology;
• costs (usually these are not awarded should you win or lose a tribunal case).

Time limits

The Act imposes strict time limits throughout the procedure for bringing a case for gender reassignment discrimination. Good cases can be lost before they start through hesitation or delay.

If you suspect that you have been discriminated against by your employer, you should take advice as soon as possible.

The time limit for making a claim for gender reassignment discrimination to the employment tribunal is three months less one day from the last act of discrimination. It is now mandatory to go through ACAS’s early conciliation scheme before you can submit a claim to the tribunal.

A discriminatory act may extend over a period of time so that it may be a continuing act if it takes the form of some policy, rule or practice by your employer. In these circumstances the three-month period runs from the end of the continuing act. 

Tribunals do have discretion to allow late claims to proceed, but there must be a good and exceptional reason why a claim was not made in time.

You should ideally obtain professional advice as soon as possible if you think you have a claim.

Please click here to go to the sexual harassment page

Please click here to go to the main Discrimination page

Employment Law FAQs

Contact Form

• Your Name * First Last
• Your Email (where we may communicate freely with you) * Enter Email Confirm Email
• Your Telephone Number
• How long have you worked for your present employer?
• Employment Years
• Employment Months
• Your Message

Please confirm you have read and understood our “1 day policy”

Our "1 day policy" concerns the free legal advice service as set out on our free employment law advice page. Our one day policy says if you haven’t heard from us within 1 working day of submitting your enquiry, it means we are unable to provide the free service due to existing commitments and your details will be deleted. This provides certainty for you, so you are not left waiting. In most cases, however, we are able to let you know the same day, and often within hours if we can take your matter forward.

• Yes, I confirm I have read and understood the above 1 day policy
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Gender reassignment and identity – Lessons from recent cases

The law and best practice lack clarity on how employers can best support employees who are going through gender reassignment or have transitioned, ensuring that they avoid claims of discrimination.

The difference between gender reassignment and non-binary gender identities may require different treatment. In this article we examine both the law and a series of recent legal developments to provide guidance on how to effectively manage and prevent discrimination in the office.

The Law and Recent Developments

The law provides protection for employees under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ but until recently there was ambiguity for the scope of protection provided to non-binary people.

Gender reassignment was previously interpreted more narrowly as being limited to an individual proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. Whereas the term ‘non-binary’ refers to an individual who may wish to be recognised as neither male nor female or adopt another approach. However, recent case law has extended the scope of legal protection to non-binary employees.

Equality Act 2010 (“EA10”)

Under the EA10 gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. It is unlawful for an employer to subject an employee or job applicant to discrimination (directly or indirectly), harassment or victimisation in respect of a protected characteristic. It should also be remembered that both the employer and employee may be liable when an employee harasses another.

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd [1]

In a case widely reported in the national media, an employment tribunal found that a non-binary person was covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Ms Taylor had worked for Jaguar for nearly 20 years but began identifying as a non-binary person. She subsequently was subjected to abuse and a lack of support from her employer. She brought a claim for harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation on the grounds of gender reassignment.

A non-binary person does not fit neatly into the EA10 definition of gender reassignment. The Tribunal recognised that it was a novel area of law but found Ms Taylor did fall within the definition of the gender reassignment as provided by the EA10. The case represents a significant shift in the law so that a greater scope of protection will be provided to non-binary individuals.

Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and others [2]

In a significant decision a Tribunal held that that a Claimant’s belief that sex was biologically immutable did not have the protected characteristic of ‘philosophical belief’ under EA10 because her view is absolutist in nature and so incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others.

The Claimant was engaged as a visiting fellow at the Respondent by a consultancy agreement. She was concerned about proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA”) such as permitting people to self-identify their gender. She tweeted a number of times on the subject of the proposed changes and more broadly on trans issues. Staff of the Respondent raised complaints about her the tweets as they found them to be transphobic. The Claimant’s contract ended, and she was not offered a further consultancy agreement. She claimed that her gender critical views are a philosophical belief under EA10 and consequently she has been subject to direct discrimination.

The judgment applied the established criteria from Grainger [3] to determine if her belief can be considered to qualify as a “philosophical belief” under s.10 EA10. Whilst the court found that the Claimant genuinely held the belief that biological sex was immutable, it went on to find that her belief was incompatible with human dignity and so not protected by EA10. Crucially, because the core of her belief is that transwomen are men and because she would positively assert this belief it could violate others’ dignity and create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

Higgs v Farmor’s School [4]

In a contrasting case to Forstater , an employment tribunal found that a Christian employee’s belief that gender cannot be fluid and cannot be changed were protected beliefs under the EA10.

Mrs Higgs worked for a school as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager. It was brought to the School’s attention that Mrs Higg’s had posted on her Facebook account links to articles which criticised gender fluidity as a “perverted vision” and demonstrated prejudiced views. She was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct on the basis of discrimination and inappropriate social media use.

Mrs Higgs brought a claim for direct discrimination and harassment in respect of the protected characteristic of religion. The Tribunal held that her various views on non-binary people were protected beliefs. The case was distinguished from Forstater as Mrs Higg’s beliefs were unlikely to result in discrimination against a trans person as there was no suggestion she would deliberately seek to offend.

However, the Tribunal concluded that there was no direct discrimination as she had not been dismissed because of her beliefs but that her actions may reasonably be perceived as homophobic and transphobic. Equally, the claim for harassment failed as the conduct of the school was not related to the protected characteristic of religion or belief.

Another notable case in a series of recent cases related to gender reassignment is that of X v Y. Where the Tribunal recognised it had made a mistake in not anonymising the parties’ names.

The claim was for unpaid wages and holiday pay but were brought out of time. The Claimant did not have legal representation and did not realise an order should be made to protect their privacy at the first hearing by anonymising the party’s names. The judgment contained highly personal information on the Claimant’s transgender identity and mental health. The Claimant had not understood the judgment would be made public in this manner and appealed the decision, seeking for parts to be redacted and their name anonymised.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal recognised that the judgment should have been anonymised to protect the Claimant but it would rarely be proportionate to delete sections of a judgement.

Lessons for Employers

1. Keeping Pace

The case of Taylor highlights how both the law and societal views are shifting and employers must ensure they are keeping pace with developments. This is even more important for public bodies to consider due to their positive legal duty to promote equality.  We suggest that all organisations should regularly review and update their policies and procedures, reviewing dress codes and responding to employee concerns promptly.

Taylor also shows there is a pressing need for employers to ensure effective training is being provided to all employees so there is a greater understanding and knowledge of the experiences of non-binary and transgender employees.

Higgs serves an important reminder that within an organisation a number of different beliefs will be held by employees and an employer must be careful to respect the differing views. However, in cases of an employee displaying prejudiced behavior there is no exception on the basis of belief which would require an employer to tolerate it.

Employers should not dismiss the small acts which can help to foster an environment where a transgender or non-binary employee feels welcomed. This can extend to including pronouns in their email footer, ensuring language and communication used by employees is considerate and facilitating social events which are not exclusionary.

3. Confidentiality

In X v Y, the tribunal explicitly acknowledged the highly personal nature of gender reassignment and the pressing need to ensure the individual’s privacy is protected. Employers must endeavor to protect employee’s personal information so that the employee feels safe in the work environment and so that their personal circumstances are dealt with compassionately and not interfering with their work.

4. Balancing Beliefs

Finally, the tweets of Ms Forstater and the eventual consequences of those tweets provide a clear illustration of the ‘grey area’ where an employee’s beliefs outside of work can come into conflict with their employment.  The case must be interpreted carefully as it does not seek to curb free speech and Ms Forstater would be able to continue to campaign against changes to GRA but misgendering a person involves violating the dignity of others.

Forstater also highlights the difficulty a business may experience when having to balance the rights of non-binary individuals and other employees. An example of this contentious issue is the attempt by some organisations to phase in non-gender specific toilets. This has caused consternation among some cis-gender females who feel their safe spaces are threatened.  There is no clear solution, which will suit all parties but the key issue is to try to find a solution through comprehensive consultation.

Sharpe Pritchard has a number of experienced employment solicitors who can help businesses comply with the latest employment regulations and best employment practices. Please contact Julie Bann if you wish to discuss any related employment queries.

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published .  If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any of the issues raised in this article, please contact us today by telephone or email  [email protected] .

[1] ET/1304471/2018

[2] [2019] 12 WLUK 516

[3] Grainger Plc v Nicolson [2010] 2 All E.R. 253, [2009] 11 WLUK 14

[4] ET/1401264/19

[5] UKEAT/0302/18

• About SP Adjudication
• About SP Mediation
• About SP Strategy
• Complaints Handling Procedure
• Corporate social responsibility
• Equality and diversity
• Our Mission, Vision and Values
• Pricing and frameworks
• Sustainability and Net Zero
• Commercial contracts
• Intellectual property
• Outsourcing and Shared Services
• Construction contracts
• Construction disputes resolution, including adjudication
• Corporate Law
• Data, Privacy and Information Law
• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
• Employment Tribunal Fees Information
• Supreme Court and Privy Councils
• Criminal Prosecutions
• Procurement challenges
• Judicial review
• Emergency Injunctions
• Housing Litigation
• Public Inquiries
• Advertising Law
• Infrastructure authorisation
• Parliamentary
• Electoral Law
• Acquisitions and disposals
• Landlord and Tenant
• Compulsory Purchase
• Regeneration and Development
• Planning applications and agreements
• Planning enforcement, appeals and disputes
• Environmental law
• Telecommunications Advisory Service
• Social Housing
• Subsidy Control
• Telecommunications
• Green Goals
• Central government
• Corporate clients
• Education providers
• Emergency services
• Energy sector
• Housing sector
• Care Contract Restructuring
• Transport sector
• Waste sector
• Water sector
• Adjudication 101
• JCT 101: Common Scenarios Solved
• The R-EV-OLUTION
• Latest news and blog
• Our Favourite Buildings
• Press Releases
• Sharpe publications
• Short and Sharpe
• Life at Sharpe Pritchard
• View our Vacancies
• What our team says
• Us in numbers
• Trainees and Apprentices
• 020 7405 4600

Trans teen in legal action over gender clinic wait

• Published 23 November 2020

This video can not be played

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

"Reece" rejects the idea that making people wait for the referral gives them "time to think" about their identity

A 14-year-old transgender boy is starting legal proceedings against NHS England over delays to gender reassignment treatment.

The teenager has waited over a year for referral to the only NHS gender clinic for children and adolescents.

The Good Law Project, which is acting for the teenager, says the NHS has a legal obligation to provide specialist care to all patients within 18 weeks, or provide an alternative.

NHS England says a review is under way.

It announced the independent review into gender identity services for young people in September. , external An NHS England spokesperson said this would include "how and when children and young people were referred to specialist services".

There have been previous reports of trans young people experiencing "hugely distressing" waits for treatment at the gender-identity development service (GIDS) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust.

But others believe the clinic is too quick to offer gender transition treatment to teenagers .

Children's gender identity clinic concerns go back 15 years

What does transgender mean and what does the law say?

The teenager at the centre of this latest case, who we are calling Reece at his request to protect his anonymity, told the BBC he "ideally" would not have to bring legal action.

But he says he had no choice because "nobody else is sticking up for trans young people".

Reece first came out as a trans boy in primary school. His family, friends and teachers were all supportive of him transitioning.

Since moving to secondary school, everyone has always known him as a boy, only referring to his new name and he/him pronouns.

However, Reece says he was able to access help with his transition only through expensive private healthcare.

In October 2019, Reece's GP referred him to the Tavistock. He has been on the waiting list for over a year, for the first stage of the process - a mental health assessment , external .

He says he is aware of others awaiting gender reassignment treatment.

"I know more than 30 trans people, from school and LGBT groups. Everybody's been waiting for months, or even years, but nobody's been able to get in yet.

"It's scary because it shows the service isn't available to the people who need it."

'Deeply concerned'

The Tavistock is currently booking appointments for people who have been waiting for an initial session since September 2017.

However, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made by the BBC has revealed that, since 2017, over 10,000 more young people have been referred to the already over-subscribed service.

This problem pre-dates the coronavirus pandemic.

Waiting times, the number of referrals, and the treatment given, are all being investigated by an independent review.

Bev Jackson, from the LGB Alliance, a self-funded lobby group, said: "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition.

"The numbers of referrals are so huge that I believe this is a social problem caused by miseducation. It is impossible for the NHS to deal with all of these young people who are coming forward.

"We need to take a step back and ask why are so many young people presenting at the clinic for a gender treatment?"

One psychotherapist, who wanted to remain anonymous, said she believed the long waiting times could be "a positive".

"Having to wait a few years for initial treatment may benefit some young people who question their gender, as they will become more mature and more knowledgeable about their identity."

However, Reece disagrees, saying this view "really frustrates" him.

"The solution to working out if a person is trans or not, is not to leave them on their own in a bad situation. If a person isn't actually trans, they won't realise that without professional support. That's why the different stages exist."

'Right to treatment'

Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, who is representing the teenager, said: "NHS England has a statutory duty to ensure that patients referred by their GP to a gender identity development service are seen within 18 weeks."

Jolyon Maugham: "The law is clear"

"This is not happening, and as a result, we believe the law shows they should be providing alternative care to anyone on the waiting list. That could include private and overseas healthcare.

"Whilst the young people are waiting, puberty passes and transitioning becomes a lot harder - some people are effectively denied treatment.

"The NHS needs to make a cultural decision that trans people are real, and they have the same rights to treatment as everybody else."

An NHS England spokesperson said: "There has been more than a 500% rise in the number of children and young people being referred to the Tavistock's gender identity service since 2013 as more people come forward for support and treatment.

"The NHS has already asked Dr Hilary Cass to carry out an independent review including how and when children and young people are referred to specialist services, so legal action against the NHS will only cost taxpayers' money and not help the actions already under way."

Follow Ben Hunte on Twitter , external and Instagram , external .

Related Topics

• Transgender people
• Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust

More on this story

Child gender clinic concerns go back 15 years

• Published 1 October 2020

Children can't consent to puberty blockers, court told

• Published 7 October 2020

Transgender people face NHS waiting list 'hell'

• Published 9 January 2020

Related Internet Links

Good Law Project

Education Secretary Gillian Keegan says gender identity 'should not be taught in schools at any age'

The education secretary, who oversaw draft statutory sex education guidance published on Thursday, said while gender reassignment should be taught in school, gender 'ideology' shouldn't be presented as fact. The NSPCC responded by criticising age limits in the guidance.

By Claire Gilbody Dickerson, news reporter

Thursday 16 May 2024 16:22, UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Gender identity "should not be taught in schools at any age", the education secretary has said after new draft guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) was published on Thursday.

The draft guidance for schools in England was compiled following concerns that children were being exposed to "inappropriate" content. It states that sex education should be taught no earlier than year five, when pupils are aged nine, and what is described as the "contested topic of gender identity" should not be taught at all.

In her foreword on the document, Gillian Keegan said the guidance is about giving children the "right information at the right time" but also ensuring "childhood innocence" isn't taken away by being taught "too much too soon".

The NSPCC criticised imposing age limits, saying children and young people must be empowered to "recognise when something isn't right and seek help when it's needed".

The children's charity added now should be the time to "embed" lessons on life-enhancing skills rather than "back-track on RSE in schools".

Ms Keegan said while gender reassignment should be taught, "schools should not teach about the contested issue of gender identity, including that gender is a spectrum".

"Whilst protected characteristics such as gender reassignment should be taught, they must be done so on a factual basis, at an appropriate age and not based on contested ideology," she added.

Read more: The gender treatments currently available to children PM urges 'extreme caution' on gender treatments

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

'Evidence pupils being taught there could be 72 genders'

Ms Keegan launched the review after there had been "some evidence from some people" that pupils were being taught that there could be "72 genders" and gender could "change daily" as facts.

Speaking in the House of Commons after the guidance was published, Labour's shadow education minister Catherine McKinnell said: "Teaching children about the facts of the world in which they grow up must include an understanding that there are people who are transgender, that people can go through a process of change of their gender, and that the law provides for that."

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Guidance on harmful sexual behaviour published

Subjects around what constitutes harmful sexual behaviour in relationships, the concepts and laws relating to sexual harassment, revenge porn, sexual exploitation and abuse, grooming, stalking and forced marriage should not be taught before year seven (age 11), the guidance states.

While the risks of inappropriate online content such as pornography can be discussed "in an age-appropriate way" from year seven, the details of sexual acts should not be discussed before year nine (age 13) it adds.

When it comes to laws relating to sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault, the guidance sets out it is important for pupils to understand the key principles around such offences including what consent means, but says "schools should not teach about this in any sexually explicit way before year nine".

Related Topics

South Carolina Gov. McMaster signs bill outlawing transgender care for trans youth

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed a bill banning certain medical care for transgender youth on Tuesday.

House Bill 4624, called the “Help not Harm” bill by legislators, prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from receiving gender reassignment surgery or any form of puberty-blocking or hormone therapy. The bill became effective immediately.

The bill also makes it a felony to perform gender reassignment surgery on those under the age of 18.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

McMaster said a ceremonial bill signing with legislators would take place in the Upstate next week.

Under the new bill, minors can still be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy to treat certain conditions like precocious puberty or endometriosis.

The new law also bans the South Carolina Medicaid program from providing coverage for gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy to adults and minors.

The bill passed on the last day of the legislative session after the House agreed to accept the Senate’s changes to the law. The Senate's major change was an amendment requiring public school principals and vice principals to report students to parents if their child informed officials that they were identifying as a different gender from their assigned sex or using different pronouns.

More: As SC legislature winds down, bill banning transgender youth medical care returns to House

Opponents of the amendment argued the measure would be a forced outing and worried it could put a child in an uncomfortable or potentially dangerous situation if their parent or guardian were not accepting. Supporters of the amendment said parents have a right to know if their children are identifying as transgender or requesting to change their pronouns.

Dr. Elizabeth Mack, president of the South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics testified against the bill during a Senate medical affairs subcommittee in February, noting there are “less than 2,000 trans kids in the state.”

Still, supporters of the bill pushed for it, saying its intention was to protect children, while others say it does the opposite.

“We stand in grief and solidarity with LGBTQ South Carolinians, who are increasingly under attack by our own government,” Executive Director of ACLU South Carolina Jace Woodrum said in a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter. “We can put to rest the notion that the government cares about limited government and personal freedom. With a stroke of a pen, he (McMaster) has chosen to insert the will of politicians into healthcare decisions, trample on the liberties of trans South Carolinians, and deny the rights of the parents of trans minors.”

South Carolina joins 25 states to outlaw transgender care for minors. It was also one of the only states that did not have a ban on transgender care in the South, with Virginia now being the lone Southern state with access.

Savannah Moss covers politics for the Greenville News. Reach her at [email protected] or follow her on X @Savmoss.

This article originally appeared on Greenville News: South Carolina Gov. McMaster signs bill outlawing transgender care for trans youth

• [ May 21, 2024 ] ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ that could have expanded abortion fails in Minnesota News Briefs
• [ May 21, 2024 ] Possible miracle at Lourdes: Almost-blind woman recovers her sight News Briefs
• [ May 21, 2024 ] UK plans to end gender ideology in schools, set age-based sex education rules News Briefs
• [ May 21, 2024 ] Pope Francis praises historic council in China as ‘an authentic synodal journey’ News Briefs
• [ May 21, 2024 ] German priests do not support Synodal Way, new study finds News Briefs

UK plans to end gender ideology in schools, set age-based sex education rules

May 21, 2024 Catholic News Agency News Briefs 0 Print

CNA Staff, May 21, 2024 / 15:55 pm (CNA).

The United Kingdom’s Department of Education intends to prohibit the promotion of gender ideology within public schools, set age-based guidelines for sex education, and protect parental rights, according to  proposed guidance  for schools.

A proposed update to Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) lesson guidance, which is now undergoing an eight-week public comment period, would prohibit schools from teaching that “gender is a spectrum.” Rather, if asked about gender identity, schools would need to “teach the facts about biological sex” and could not present alternative views about gender as being facts.

“Material suggesting that someone’s gender is determined by their interests or clothing choices should not be used as it risks leading pupils who do not comply with sex stereotypes to question their gender when they might not have done so otherwise,” the proposed guidance reads.

The proposal states that “schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity” and calls the concept “a highly contested and complex subject.” The proposal adds that schools “should be clear that an individual must be 18 before they can legally reassign their gender.” For students under the age of 18, it states “a child’s legal sex will always be the same as their biological sex and, at school, boys cannot be legally classified as girls or vice versa.”

When using “external resources,” the proposed guidance would instruct schools to “avoid materials that use cartoons or diagrams that oversimplify this complex concept or that could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children.” It also states that “schools should consult parents on the content of external resources on this topic in advance and make all materials available to them on request.”

The guidance also states that schools should teach students about laws related to protected groups, which includes those facing discrimination for gender reassignment, sexual orientation, religion, sex, and other characteristics.

Per the proposed guidance, schools would not provide any sex education until Year 5, when the students are usually 9 or 10 years old. The proposal also sets age-based guidelines for the type of sex education students receive.

However, parents can opt their children out of all or some sex education lessons, except for lessons that are part of the science curriculum (which teach about topics such as puberty and sexual reproduction) — this is already part of existing guidance. A student who is at least 16 years old can opt themselves back into the sex education lessons with or without parental approval, which is also part of existing guidance.

The guidelines would establish new protections for parental rights. Per the proposal, schools would need to make all sex education material available for parents to review.

Education Secretary Gillian Keegan  said in a statement  that the proposal “puts protecting children at its heart, and enshrines parents’ right to know what their children are being taught.”

“It will support schools with how and when to teach often difficult and sensitive topics, leaving no doubt about what is appropriate to teach pupils at every stage of school,” Keegan said. “Parents can be reassured once and for all their children will only learn age-appropriate content.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in a statement that he was “horrified” to hear reports last year that schools were providing sex education to students that was inappropriate for their ages.

“I will always act swiftly to protect our children and this new guidance will do exactly that, while supporting teachers to teach these important topics sensitively and giving parents access to curriculum content if they wish,” Sunak said.

Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which is a nonprofit based in London,  expressed support  for the proposed guidelines.

“We are glad and relieved that primary school children will now be protected from such lessons,” CLC Chief Executive Andrea Williams said in a statement. “But this must only be a beginning. So much harm has been done and so much confusion sown. Schools must return to their Christian roots and the biblical beliefs on identity and sexual ethics, which set children and stable families up for life.”

The changes come just months after England  ended the prescription  of sex-change drugs to minors back in March. Scotland soon followed,  ending such prescriptions  in April. The policy changes stem from  an independent review  from Dr. Hilary Cass, which found insufficient evidence to support the efficacy and safety of providing these drugs to children.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

• Catholic News
• gender ideology
• United Kingdom

Related Articles

EWTN designated official channel for 2024 International Eucharistic Congress

ACI Prensa Staff, May 21, 2024 / 06:40 am (CNA).

The 53rd International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) has chosen EWTN as the official channel for providing live coverage of the event, which will take place from Sept. 8–15 in Quito, Ecuador.

“The 53rd International Eucharistic Congress , which will be held in Quito Sept. 8–15, has chosen EWTN as its official channel, which will broadcast everything related” to this great event, said Father Juan Carlos Garzón, secretary-general of the IEC Quito 2024, in a statement sent from Rome to ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner.

The theme for this year’s International Eucharistic Congress is “Fraternity to Heal the World.” On Monday, the Vatican also announced that Pope Francis designated Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect for the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family, and Life, as pontifical legate to the congress .

Garzón was in Rome last week as part of a delegation, chaired by Alfredo Espinoza Mateus, archbishop of Quito and primate of Ecuador, “to hold a series of meetings with the main papal authorities.”

Since the beginning of the preparations for IEC 2024, Garzón added: “EWTN has been present at the orientation and training for IEC 2024 communications personnel.”

EWTN preparations for IEC Quito 2024 

In tandem, to coordinate EWTN’s transmissions of IEC Quito 2024, a team from the network visited the Ecuadorian capital, including the Quito Metropolitan Convention Center, where the congress will be held.

The team was comprised of EWTN Vice President for Programming and Production Peter Gagnon, EWTN Director of Production Michael Holmes, and EWTN Vice President for Spanish-language Production, Marketing, and Radio Enrique Duprat.

Gagnon said EWTN transmissions of the event will be offered in Spanish, English, and German. “This will be a wonderful event for those attending and for those watching,” Gagnon said. 

“For EWTN, it is an immense joy to be the channel for the Quito 2024 International Eucharistic Congress,” Duprat said. “It is essential for us to be the platform on which, no matter where our audience is, everyone can enjoy the most important Catholic events in the Church.”

As for coverage details, Duprat said: “The plan is to be able to offer this International Eucharistic Congress live and direct from Quito and in multiple languages [Spanish, English, and German] both through our television and radio signals, the internet, and through our digital app.”

The event coincides with the 150th anniversary of the 1874 consecration of Ecuador to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In 1886, Quito was also the site of the first National Eucharistic Congress.

During their preparatory visit, the EWTN team traveled the route of a procession that will take place on Sept. 14 in the historic center of Quito, which will begin with a Mass in San Francisco Plaza and then head to the Basilica of the National Vow, where benediction will be given.

They also visited the IEC offices, where they were received by Garzón, who explained how the organization of the event is progressing, including the schedule of a theological symposium to be held Sept. 4–7, just prior to the Sept. 8–15 congress.

The EWTN delegation also visited the Middle of the World Park and Monument to the Equator, marking the equator dividing the northern and southern hemispheres and where a Liturgy of the Word is planned with emphasis on care for creation.

Registration underway

Registration for the International Eucharistic Congress, both for the theological symposium and for the congress itself, is underway and available through the event website .

The largest Catholic media organization in the world, EWTN’s 11 global TV channels and numerous regional channels are broadcast in multiple languages 24 hours a day, seven days a week to over 425 million television households in more than 160 countries and territories. EWTN platforms also include radio services transmitted through SIRIUS/XM, iHeart Radio, and more than 600 domestic and international AM and FM radio affiliates and a worldwide shortwave radio service.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., EWTN News operates multiple global news services, including Catholic News Agency; The National Catholic Register newspaper and digital platform; ACI Prensa in Spanish; ACI Digital in Portuguese; ACI Stampa in Italian; ACI Africa in English, French, and Portuguese; ACI Mena in Arabic; CNA Deutsch in German; and ChurchPop, a digital platform that creates content in several languages. It also produces numerous television news programs including “EWTN News Nightly,” “EWTN News In Depth,” “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly,” and “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo.”

This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

Why the heritage listing of this ‘radical’ English Cathedral might signal a change in attitude

The Roman Catholic Cathedral Church of St Mary and St Helen in the Diocese of Brentwood, Essex (UK). / Historic England Archive

Brentwood, England, Jul 14, 2022 / 02:11 am (CNA). Brentwood Cathedral, the first classical cathedral to be built in… […]

Moms on campus: How are Catholic colleges helping students facing unexpected pregnancies?

Katie, a student at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota, eats with her baby, Lucia, on her lap in the company of fellow students. Katie is among the first students to benefit from a new initiative at the Catholic college called the … […]

Be the first to comment

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.

© Catholic World Report

You can see how this popup was set up in our step-by-step guide: https://wppopupmaker.com/guides/auto-opening-announcement-popups/

Sign up to receive a weekly email with news, analysis, and commentary from a voice you can trust!

Email Frequency

Florida's transgender affirming care ban is now law. Here's what SB 254 does:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a new bill into law Wednesday that  restricts gender-affirming care for transgender adults and children .

Critics of the bill, SB 254, refer to it as the  Florida “abduction” bill  because they claim it allows children to be  “legally kidnapped”  by disagreeing parents — even if the opposing parent lives across state lines — if the child is subject to or “threatened” with sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures.

Senator Clay Yarborough, who introduced the bill, said the bill is meant to protect children from “drastic life-altering gender dysphoria therapies and surgeries” that he said are being prescribed for children. He argued that both parents should have a say in whether their child receives gender-affirming care.

Florida's anti-LGBTQ bills: A rundown of Florida bills causing 'massive panic' in transgender, LGBTQ communities

SB 254 lands on DeSantis' desk: Restrictions on transgender health care pass Florida Legislature, head to DeSantis

The Tallahassee Democrat reported that while the legislation was not as wide-reaching as House members wanted it to be, it will still restrict care for both transgender children and adults. Along with the ban for new youth patients, the bill requires that a physician administer gender affirming care to adult patients in person, barring the use of telehealth and other health care workers, like nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants, to begin care. Doctors who violate those sections could face a first-degree misdemeanor.

Gender-affirming care for youth has support from  nearly every mainstream  medical organization, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, the Endocrine Society and the American Psychiatric Association. Politifact has determined that while the state cannot kidnap children, the law can affect custody disputes.

LGBTQ advocacy groups said last week they plan to ask a judge to block the law as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the Board of Medicine ban.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s in the bill:

Florida courts can receive temporary emergency jurisdiction

The bill would grant Florida courts temporary emergency jurisdiction if a child present in the state has been abandoned; it’s deemed necessary if the child, a sibling or the parent of a child is subjected to or “threatened” with mistreatment or abuse; or if the child is subjected to or “threatened” with sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures.

Parents can apply for a warrant to receive physical custody of a child

Section 2 of the bill allows parents to file a petition seeking enforcement of a child custody determination. If a parent believes that their child is likely to “imminently suffer serious physical harm or removal of the state,” they can file a verified issuance of a warrant to take physical custody of the child.

The section explicitly states that serious physical harm “includes, but is not limited to,” being subjected to sex-reassignment prescriptions and procedures.

Florida diversity, pronoun bills: Florida bills targeting diversity programs and pronouns in schools heads to DeSantis

Censoring drag shows, Pride events: In one day, three bills targeting transgender Floridians pass House

State funds are prohibited from being used for gender-affirming care

Another section of the bill prohibits any “governmental entity” from expending state funds for sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures.

State is erasing trans options: What can I do if I'm a transgender person living in Florida?

People under 18 can no longer receive gender-affirming care unless they qualify for an exception

Section 5 of the bill prohibits sex-reassignment prescriptions and procedures for patients younger than 18 years old. The Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine will have 60 days to adopt emergency rules pertaining to standards of practice where a minor could continue to be treated with a prescription consistent with those defined in Florida Statute 456.001.

That transition-related medical care includes puberty blockers, hormones and surgery. Despite claims by DeSantis that medical care amounts to child mutilation, gender-affirmation surgery is generally only recommended for adults. For children, care doesn't begin until the onset of puberty.

Physicians must be in the room with adults receiving gender-affirming care, barring the use of telehealth services

The same section also requires that physicians prescribing, administering a pharmaceutical product or performing a procedure must be, at minimum, physically present in the same room as the patient.

Further restrictions require that only physicians can administer and perform these procedures, barring other health care workers, like nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants, to begin care.

The Tallahassee Democrat reported that at least one Florida clinic that provides gender-affirming care is staffed only by nurse practitioners, leaving care for those patients uncertain under the bill. SPEKTRUM Health serves patients in Central Florida with locations in Orlando and Melbourne.

"Absolutely gutted," CEO Joey Knoll told the Democrat on Thursday. "I've spent the last year trying to raise awareness, get help, and avoid a catastrophe ... that is now imminent."

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Betting Sites
• Online Casinos
• Wine Offers

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

South Carolina governor signs into law ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors

South carolina gov. henry mcmaster has signed into law a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails, thanks for signing up to the breaking news email.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster on Tuesday signed into law a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

When the ink dried, South Carolina became the 25th state to restrict or ban such care for minors. The governor announced the signing on social media and said he would hold a ceremonial bill signing next week.

The law bars health professionals from performing gender-transition surgeries, prescribing puberty blockers and overseeing hormone treatments for patients under 18.

School principals or vice principals would have to notify parents or guardians if a child wanted to use a name other than their legal one, or a nickname or pronouns that did not match their sex assigned at birth.

The bill was changed in the Senate to allow mental health counselors to talk about banned treatments — and even suggest a place where they are legal. Doctors can also prescribe puberty blockers for some conditions for which they are prescribed such as when a child begins what is called precocious puberty — as young as age 4.

Groups including the Campaign for Southern Equality noted that the law takes effect immediately. The group is gathering resources to help families find any help they might need outside of South Carolina and most of the Southeast, which have similar bans.

“Healthcare is a human right – and it breaks my heart to see lawmakers rip away life-affirming and often life-saving medical care from transgender youth in South Carolina. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access the care that they need and deserve," Uplift Outreach Center Executive Director Raymond Velazquez said in a statement after lawmakers passed the ban.

Earlier this year, McMaster said he supported the proposal to “keep our young people safe and healthy.”

“If they want to make those decisions later when they’re adults, then that’s a different story, but we must protect our young people from irreversible decisions," the governor said.

As the bill advanced in the General Assembly, doctors and parents testified before House and Senate committees that people younger than 18 do not receive gender-transition surgeries in South Carolina and that hormone treatments begin only after extensive consultation with health professionals.

They said the treatments can be lifesaving, allowing young transgender people to live more fulfilling lives. Research has shown that transgender youth and adults are prone to stress, depression and suicidal behavior when forced to live as the sex they were assigned at birth.

Supporters of the bill have cited their own unpublished evidence that puberty blockers increase self-harm and can be irreversible.

Groups that help transgender people promised to keep working even with the new law.

“To all of the young people in South Carolina and their parents who are reading this news and feeling fear for the future, please know: No law can change the fact that you are worthy of dignity, equality, joy, and respect," said Cristina Picozzi, executive director of the Harriet Hancock Center, an LBTQ advocacy nonprofit.

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Want an ad-free experience?

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre