Times removes inaccurate story about trans women's right to use female toilets

Wow, for a press organ about the press, the Press Gazzette sure does sloppy reporting. The decision from IPSO doesn't say what valleysval, pressgazette & pinknews are claiming it says:

www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04770-18

The remedy offered by the Sunday Times - a clarification on the Letters page - was accepted as sufficient by IPSO right off the bat. Here's what it said:

Our report ‘Ladies loos at City landmarks may open to trans women’ (News, July 29) was misleading because it did not accurately explain the current rights of transgender women under the Equality Act. Service providers can allow transgender people to use single sex spaces such as toilets but can exclude them if this can be justified as a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim.

This is the opposite of saying transwomen have a right to use female loos under the EA. Service providers can decide to allow them in, but can also exclude them. Transwomen have no automatic right of access.

The complainant, Amelia Bee, had wanted the Sunday Times to apologize to the transgender community, state that "transgender access to single sex spaces does not correlate with increased criminal activity" & disavow "the term ‘self-identifying transgender women’ as 'unhelpful' because all transgender people ‘self-identify’." She didn't get anything that came close, so it's misleading to suggest she's the victor here.

The fact that the SundayTimes deep-sixed the piece following the complaint to IPSO doesn't mean IPSO ordered them to do so. They probably pulled it to avoid further hassle & expense, & because they didn't consider it worth fighting or losing money over. In journalism, a longstanding rule has always been, "today's paper, tomorrow's fishwrap", so dumping this one piece for the sake of expediency probably would not have been considered that big a deal at Times HQ.

Also, it doesn't look like any experts in equalities-law were involved in IPSO's decision; none is mentioned or referenced. The claims about the Equalities Act in the decision appear to be just claims asserted by the complainant.

Or that's how I read it. I might be wrong. See for yourselves.

valleysval Yes ... if you read the GRA 2004, this is the process for obtaining a GRC to enable a change to the Birth Certificate [not all applicants can have medication or surgery for various health reasons] but they must have a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" plus have lived "in role" for two years. A transsexual is a person who has legally changed the sex reference on their Birth Certificate. [Even changing that sex reference does not give any male born person the right to access any space designated for any female born person.]

"Transgender", "gender identity" etc are not recognised in any way in any UK law.

Why do you think the erasure of women as a distinct legal class along with all of our rights is is good to see?

If you check Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 it qualifies the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment; as applying only to "transsexuals"; ie: those who have a GRC issued in accord with the GRA 2004. [One cannot be a "transsexual" if the sex on the Birth Certificate has not been changed?]

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

See also: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/1/4

The terms "transgender", "transwoman". "transman", "gender identity", "gender expression" do not exist in any UK law and have zero legal meaning.

No male born person has a "right" in any UK law to access toilets / changing rooms / or any other space designated for the sex class that is female. Yet again, trans lobby is willfully misrepresenting UK law.

So is Maria Miller correct when she says women only services are protected by the Equality Act or not?

I'm none the wiser.

Firstly, are there any laws governing use of toilets? You can't actually be arrested for entering the 'wrong' one.

And doesn't the EA give organisations the ability to grant exemptions (eg restrict access to a service just to women) but it doesn't compel them to do so.

And aren't people with a GRC legally considered to be their acquired sex (with a few specific exceptions), so if the protected characteristic of sex (woman) is invoked, a GRC transwoman would be included as a woman?

So isn't it the case that no one is prevented by law from entering any toilet, and if an EA sex exemption were invoked, a GRC transwoman wouldn't be prevented from using a woman's toilet?

Or have I got that wrong?

Seems like IPSO don't know the law and took this Amelia Bee's word for it.

Good try!

Sunday Times, sorry!

I don't know why the Times backed down on this. They were right in the first place. I think we should put a complaint into IPSO that their correction is misleading

In practice men do have access to female toilets, but it is not a right.

What is this nonsense?! This is rubbish!

Its not law that men have access to female toilet facility's. What is this fresh rot!

as we all know, that right is already protected by the Equality Act

That's news to me.

Where in the Equality Act does it say ‘transwomen’ have a right to use female toilets?

It says men undergoing gender reassignment may not be discriminated against - in other words they can not be excluded from MENS toilets and must be treated like other men.

It also say men with a GRC that provides them with the legal fiction of womenhood may still be excluded from certain single sex spaces for women.

The Equality Act does not create a 'right' for transwomen to use female toilets, what it does, is permit organisations to exclude transwomen from female toilets, however this is not an automatic process, that was the inaccuracy here.

No need to 'correct' with more nonsense.

"Good to see the Times pulling an inaccurate story claiming that trans women were not allowed to use female toilets when, as we all know, that right is already protected by the Equality Act."

Er, you what?

Good. I was so pissed off with The Times at this story, after all Andrew Gillighan's good work.

I shared my thoughts with the writer of this misleading piece on Twitter.