When people hear the phrase protected characteristics, reactions tend to be extreme. Some people see them as essential safeguards that stop discrimination and abuse. Others see them as blunt legal tools that create resentment, unfairness, or unintended consequences. As with most things that sit at the intersection of law, psychology, work, and identity, the truth is less comfortable and more nuanced than either side wants to admit.
I’ve worked with organisations, leaders, HR teams, and individuals long enough to see both sides up close. I’ve seen protected characteristics prevent genuine harm. I’ve also seen them misused, misunderstood, or weaponised in ways that quietly damage trust, morale, and fairness. This article isn’t about taking a political side. It’s about being honest, practical, and clear-eyed about what protected characteristics do well, where they fall short, and why the conversation around them is so emotionally charged.
What protected characteristics actually are
At their core, protected characteristics are attributes defined in law that make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of those attributes. In the UK, these are set out in the Equality Act 2010. They include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Other countries define similar but not identical lists.
The intent is simple: people should not be treated unfairly for things that are intrinsic to who they are, or which society has historically used as justification for exclusion or harm. That intent matters. Without it, discrimination doesn’t disappear; it just becomes easier to excuse.
For a factual overview of how protected characteristics are defined and how equality law developed, Wikipedia gives a solid neutral summary that’s worth grounding yourself in before forming strong opinions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_characteristic
Why protected characteristics exist in the first place
To understand the good and bad, you have to understand the history. Protected characteristics weren’t invented in a vacuum. They emerged because “treat everyone the same” turned out not to work in a world that didn’t start from the same position.
If a hiring manager refuses to interview women because “they’ll probably have kids,” treating men and women “the same” after that decision doesn’t fix the injustice. If landlords refuse housing to people based on race, telling everyone to “just compete fairly” is meaningless. Protected characteristics exist because power, bias, and structural advantage are real, even when nobody wants to admit to holding them.
From a psychological perspective, this aligns with decades of research into implicit bias, in-group favouritism, and status quo bias. These aren’t fringe ideas; they are well-established findings in behavioural science and social psychology. PubMed hosts extensive peer-reviewed research on discrimination, bias, and social categorisation for anyone who wants to go beyond opinion:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=discrimination+implicit+bias
The good: where protected characteristics genuinely help
They create a legal backstop against abuse
The single biggest positive is simple: protected characteristics give people legal recourse. Without them, discrimination becomes a moral debate rather than a legal one. That matters because moral debates are easy to ignore, especially when power imbalances exist.
A junior employee being harassed because of their race or sexuality is unlikely to “win” a purely cultural argument against a senior figure. Legal protection changes the balance of power. It says, clearly, “this behaviour is not just unkind, it is unlawful.”
They reduce arbitrary decision-making
When organisations know certain decisions are legally risky, they are more likely to formalise processes. Structured interviews, transparent promotion criteria, documented performance reviews – all of these reduce bias not just against protected groups, but against everyone. Ironically, rules designed to protect minorities often improve fairness for the majority as well.
They signal societal values
Law is not just enforcement; it is communication. Protected characteristics send a message about what society considers unacceptable. Even people who never file a complaint benefit from living in a culture where discrimination is named, defined, and discouraged.
They help surface hidden problems
Many organisations genuinely believe they are fair until data proves otherwise. Protected characteristics enable measurement. Once you start tracking outcomes by age, gender, disability, or ethnicity, patterns emerge that anecdotes hide. You cannot fix what you refuse to measure.
Here’s a simple example table showing how protected characteristics can reveal issues that “everyone is treated the same” fails to catch:
| Area measured | Without protected characteristics | With protected characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Hiring | “Best person wins” | Disparities become visible |
| Promotion | “Merit-based” | Patterns can be audited |
| Pay | “Market rates” | Pay gaps can be identified |
| Complaints | “Rare issues” | Trends can be analysed |
They protect people at vulnerable moments
Some characteristics are situational rather than permanent. Pregnancy, maternity, disability, or gender reassignment can make people temporarily or permanently vulnerable in workplaces designed around an assumed “default” human. Protection here isn’t special treatment; it’s preventing punishment for being human.
The bad: where protected characteristics cause real problems
This is where honesty is required, because pretending there are no downsides is one reason resentment grows.
They can create perceived unfairness
When people believe outcomes are influenced by protected status rather than merit, trust erodes fast. Whether that belief is accurate matters less than the fact that it exists. Humans are exquisitely sensitive to fairness, and perceived injustice triggers anger more reliably than actual disadvantage.
This doesn’t mean protections are wrong; it means implementation matters. Poorly communicated diversity targets, opaque decision-making, or box-ticking exercises can turn protection into a source of division.
They can reduce individuals to categories
One of the most uncomfortable paradoxes is that laws designed to stop people being defined by characteristics often require organisations to define people by those characteristics. When you are repeatedly asked to disclose protected attributes, it can feel like identity has replaced individuality.
For some people, this is empowering. For others, it feels invasive or reductive. Both responses are valid, and ignoring either creates friction.
They can discourage honest conversation
In many workplaces, protected characteristics create conversational landmines. Managers become afraid to give feedback. Colleagues avoid discussing real issues. Disagreement gets misinterpreted as discrimination. The result is surface-level harmony masking deeper dysfunction.
I’ve seen teams where nobody dares address performance problems because the person involved belongs to a protected group and leaders fear legal repercussions. That doesn’t help the individual or the team.
They can be misused as shields
This is one of the most taboo points, but it happens. Protected characteristics can be invoked to deflect legitimate criticism or accountability. When that occurs, it damages the credibility of genuine discrimination claims and fuels backlash against the entire framework.
It’s important to say this carefully: misuse does not invalidate protection, but pretending misuse never happens undermines trust in the system.
They struggle with complexity and intersectionality
People are not single-attribute beings. Someone can be privileged in one context and disadvantaged in another. Protected characteristics tend to be handled one dimension at a time, while real lives are messy and overlapping.
This can lead to crude assumptions – for example, assuming someone is advantaged because of gender while ignoring class, disability, or background. The law is necessarily blunt; human experience is not.
The psychological tension at the heart of the debate
From a psychological perspective, protected characteristics sit at the collision point of three powerful human instincts:
Fairness – We want outcomes to feel deserved.
Belonging – We want our group to be recognised and valued.
Autonomy – We don’t want to be reduced to labels.
Protected characteristics support belonging, challenge simplistic ideas of fairness, and sometimes threaten autonomy. That tension is unavoidable. Any system that tries to correct historical injustice will feel uncomfortable to those who don’t see themselves as beneficiaries of injustice.
Research into social identity theory shows that when group categories become salient, people instinctively defend their in-group and scrutinise perceived advantages given to others. This doesn’t make people bad; it makes them human.
Protected characteristics in the workplace
In work environments, protected characteristics have very practical consequences. Hiring, promotion, performance management, redundancy, and discipline all become higher-stakes activities.
This is where execution matters more than ideology. Good organisations don’t rely on protected characteristics as a moral crutch. They use them as guardrails while focusing relentlessly on clarity, fairness, and evidence.
Here’s a practical comparison of two organisational approaches:
| Poor approach | Better approach |
|---|---|
| Box-ticking diversity quotas | Transparent criteria and structured decisions |
| Silence out of fear | Clear behavioural standards for everyone |
| Assumed intent | Evidence-based reviews |
| Legal defensiveness | Psychological safety |
If you’re working in HR, management, or consulting, this is also where external expertise often comes in. I’ve seen many businesses turn to independent consultants or freelancers via platforms like Fiverr to audit processes, train managers, or redesign hiring systems precisely because internal teams feel stuck between compliance and culture. Used well, that external perspective can defuse tension rather than inflame it.
The impact on those being protected
One rarely discussed issue is how protected characteristics affect the people they are meant to protect.
Some experience relief and safety. Others feel pressure, scrutiny, or imposter syndrome – the sense that achievements will be attributed to identity rather than effort. This can quietly erode confidence.
Psychologically, being told you are protected can feel very different from being told you are capable. Protection without empowerment can become another kind of limitation.
The cultural backlash problem
Backlash doesn’t emerge because protection exists. It emerges when people feel ignored, lectured to, or morally inferior. When conversations around protected characteristics become absolutist – good versus evil, enlightened versus ignorant – resistance hardens.
Ironically, this can make life harder for the very people protections were designed to help. A system that relies on compliance without consent will always struggle long-term.
What protected characteristics are not good at
They are not good at changing hearts.
They are not good at resolving interpersonal conflict.
They are not good at creating belonging on their own.
They are not good at nuance.
Law can prohibit behaviour, but culture determines what people do when nobody is watching. Expecting protected characteristics to do cultural work they were never designed for leads to disappointment and cynicism.
How to think about protected characteristics more constructively
A healthier way to approach this topic is to hold three ideas at once:
Discrimination is real and needs legal protection
Protection has costs and side effects
Implementation matters more than slogans
When organisations focus on behaviour, evidence, and transparency, protected characteristics fade into the background where they belong – as safety nets, not centrepieces.
A practical mindset shift
Instead of asking, “How do we avoid getting sued?”
Ask, “How do we make decisions we could defend to anyone?”
Instead of asking, “Who is protected here?”
Ask, “What behaviour would be unacceptable no matter who did it?”
Instead of asking, “Are we compliant?”
Ask, “Would this feel fair if I were on the receiving end?”
These questions don’t weaken protection; they strengthen it.
Where this leaves us
Protected characteristics are neither saints nor villains. They are tools. Necessary ones, in my view, but imperfect and often mishandled.
The danger isn’t that they exist. The danger is treating them as moral shortcuts instead of legal safeguards. When that happens, people stop listening, trust erodes, and the original purpose gets lost.
If there’s one takeaway worth sitting with, it’s this: the more confident and fair your everyday systems are, the less visible protected characteristics need to be. When decisions are clear, humane, and defensible, protection becomes background noise rather than a battlefield.
That’s not a comfortable conclusion, but it’s a realistic one – and realism is what this conversation needs far more than outrage or denial.
