Enby credit report
Financial services firms have been forced to pay hundreds of pounds in compensation to non-binary customers over “discriminatory” application forms.
MoneySuperMarket (MSM), the comparison website, and Transunion, a credit union, were hit with separate complaints because their application forms did not include options for non-binary customers in their gender section.
But…that’s not a thing. It’s not real. It has nothing to do with realities like credit. You might as well say credit applications should include options for witches.
According to the complaint, MSM argued that changes to their website are bound by the information their insurance partners ask for and that many of them have not made provision for customers who identify as non-binary.
Why would they, when it has nothing to do with anything?
Transunion argued that the title Mx is not legally protected under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and that the individual’s title has no bearing on their ability to gain access to credit.
What I’m saying. It has nothing to do with credit so why make a fuss about it? The usual, no doubt: for attention.
The ruling said: “Mx E has told us that the events surrounding the complaint made them feel they had to justify their non-binary identity and go through a process of ‘proving I exist’. It was (or should’ve been) foreseeable to Transunion that this was potentially offensive and distressing. Having listened to Mx E’s account, I’m persuaded that they experienced both stress and upset as a result of this matter.”
Self-induced stress and upset. How about telling Mx Ex that applying for credit is not about Mx Ex’s fascinating personality so grow up and shut up and go away?
A spokesman for MSM said: “Many of the insurers and financial services providers that we work with have systems that currently only refer to a binary concept of gender. We’re actively working with our partners to make non-binary options available.”
Why? Why on earth? Surely insurers and financial services want to know applicants’ sex for reasons of verification and/or risk level and the like? Knowing applicants are “non-binary” is not useful for anything…unless being a self-absorbed buffoon affects your credit rating.
Anna Dews, a solicitor in Leigh Day’s human rights team, said: “Although there is currently no statutory legal recognition of non-binary gender identities in the UK, it is completely fair and reasonable that a non-binary person should be able to refer to themselves using the correct pronouns as a customer in the online space.”
But the only correct pronouns for people referring to themselves are “me” and “I” – which are already “non-binary.”
This crap gets stupider every day.
Meanwhile, today (and not for the first time), I was filling in a form that wanted my “gender identity” and had no option for “I don’t have one”. The best I could do was answer “I prefer not to say”, which obviously leads the form designer to conclude that the form is still insufficiently coddling of very special gender identities and the vulnerable people who have them. The form did not ask for my sex. The very next page, the form asked what sort of indigenous person I might be, and allowed for every possibility, including that I was not indigenous. Apparently, it was possible to not be indigenous, but utterly impossible to not have a gender identity.
How extremely bizarre.
Why does a person’s sex, or gender matter. The only discrimination should be finacial soundness, Shouldn’t it?
Sex information, along with other demographic characteristics, are useful for analysis later to determine if there was a pattern of discrimination based on those characteristics. Nobody should be denied a loan for being female, and we don’t usually know that women are being denied loans without application statistics.
Raise your hand if you’ve ever been lectured condescendingly by a transactivist that “sex and gender are not the same thing.” Yet here we are, with a transactivist using the courts to say that they are the same thing.
You can’t deny someone credit based on their sex, but you can based on the fact that they are jackasses. (I think, I don’t think being a jackass is a protected characteristic, yet.)
Sorry, you can lower your hands now.