gammon as a description of a person - is clearly a derogatory potentially racist slur. Make an argument that isn't based on someone's colour/skin tone
I didn't say it wasn't a derogatory slur, I said it isn't a racist slur.
I agree it is under discussion, I doubt it will ever become a racist slur. Currently, it isn't a racist slur.
You can't make an argument based on anything other than the flushed complexion of far right people when they become agitated because that is the origin of the terminology.
Similarly, you couldn't make an argument based on ginger haired people, on anything but the colour of their hair, because that is the whole crux of the slur. But a slur against ginger haired people is not a racist slur.
'tis complete boll*x today. Note the date of the article: 2007
transvestite is a sub-category of transgender with regard to protected characteristics found in for example the Equalities Act 2010
You may be right, I haven't researched it, and I haven't kept up to date on the legality.
I do know that the original legislation did not cover crossdressing. When did the legislation extend to cover crossdressing?
The discrimination only applies in employment and vocational training (or that was the original legislation) so the employer - dress code example might still stand.
Thus discrimination on dress code or because the employee is a practising transvestite would be down to individual case judgement.
And all of this is by the by, because a cross dresser does not change sex/gender. Therefore ReganAndCarter's comment is still invalid.