Is this statement legally correct

Thread about the appalling new NHS "single-sex" accommodation policy.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3705528-New-NHS-guidance-on-same-sex-accommodation

It's not single-sex if you allow men to self-identify onto the women's wards.

The statements of policy captured organisations do not reflect what the law says. There is no need to force women to share intimate accommodation with males. There are exemptions. They lie about single sex wards. They do it because they don't give a single fuck about women and girls. Like you.

improvement.nhs.uk/resources/delivering-same-sex-accommodation/

I think you'll find this pretty much echoes what I was saying.

inebriati make sure you archive those pages

Sport - when discrimination is allowed in the provision of goods or services.

Separate sporting competitions for men and women;

Sporting competitions where physical strength, stamina or physique are important factors in deciding who wins can be restricted on the basis of sex. If one sex is generally at a disadvantage compared to the other, it’s not unlawful to hold separate competitions for men and women.

For example, it's not unlawful to organise separate tennis or football competitions for men and women.

Exclusion of transsexual people from sporting competitions;
The Equality Act also says it’s lawful to restrict the participation of transsexuals from sporting competitions where physical strength, stamina or physique are important factors in deciding who wins.

But this must necessary to make sure:

the competition is fair, or
the other competitors are safe.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/sport-when-discrimination-is-allowed-in-the-provision-of-goods-or-services/

The Citizens Advice Bureau has pages of advice in plain English, and have explained how the exemptions work.

Single-sex and separate services for men and women - when discrimination is allowed.

When is it lawful to provide single-sex services?
A service provider can provide single-sex services in the following situations:

• only one sex needs the service - for example, post-natal classes for women

• it’s a more effective way to provide the service - for example, a father’s support group where men don’t attend the parents’ support group

• the services are of a type that you would object to someone of the opposite sex being there - for example, separate changing rooms or a service involving personal hygiene

• communal accommodation - for example, women only dormitories in a hostel

• the service involves a high degree of physical contact - for example, self-defence or judo classes.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/single-sex-and-separate-services-for-men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

I don't think this is going to meet any criteria whatsoever as a legitimate legal position to challenge the EA, but good luck to you.

Thanks. This scenario has already been raised with a QC who agreed that there was a potential issue of sexual harassment if male crossdressers (under the capacious trans umbrella as we all know) are using women's facilities.

Discussed in this MN thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do?pg=5&order=

I'm finding it hard to care what you think freethegenders because you've been shown to be wrong several times on this thread and you clearly give no shits about women and girls.

I'm sure it was coordinated in some way Creepster. They all meet up at conferences etc.

A bit late with this but, my apologies if I seemed to be saying there was only one fraudulent EA document being circulated. There appear to have been several, none of which listed sex as an EA protected characteristic.
Suddenly some misogynists thought they had the legal right to discriminate against women again. So they did.

"For example if my employer made me share toilets, changing facilities etc. with male people I would consider that unwanted conduct on the part of my employer because it would create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for me."

I don't think this is going to meet any criteria whatsoever as a legitimate legal position to challenge the EA, but good luck to you.

I would crowdfund the fuck out of a case like that.

Apparently the vast majority of EA cases are brought by women on the grounds of sex. Though you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, because we women have it so easy, don't we?

For example if my employer made me share toilets, changing facilities etc. with male people I would consider that unwanted conduct on the part of my employer because it would create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for me.

Yes exactly. This side of the equation has not been tested in court.

No, not if the guidance is rewritten so that employers and service providers realise their rights to exclude males (which are not clear and subject to an avalanche of misinformation by pro trans agenda commentators and activists) and their obligations towards women to allow them to participate fairly in public life.

Yes. The EA is HUGE and labyrinthine. Employers, service providers etc. are reliant on guidance to make sense of it. EHRC guidance is bad enough but there's far worse out there from eg. Stonewall who pretend as if the single sex exceptions don't exist at all (while actively campaigning for their removal).

And the problem is compounded because TRAs have made everyone so terrified of getting it wrong that organisations won't touch it in-house, they'll get the 'experts' in and daren't deviate from what they are told by them, even if they suspect it's not quite right.

I think we need some cases brought under the harassment part of the EA.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i)violating B's dignity, or

(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

For example if my employer made me share toilets, changing facilities etc. with male people I would consider that unwanted conduct on the part of my employer because it would create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for me.

As far as the guidance being a grey area as suggested by women and equalities, I already covered this when I said above, it is almost entirely unenforceable, and unless something that is legal now, becomes explicitly against the law, the discussion is almost entirely a thought exercise with no practical application.

No, not if the guidance is rewritten so that employers and service providers realise their rights to exclude males (which are not clear and subject to an avalanche of misinformation by pro trans agenda commentators and activists) and their obligations towards women to allow them to participate fairly in public life.

I'll take the Women and Equalities Committee discussion as an important acknowledgement that, as very clearly laid out in law, there are provisions made for spaces and services to be female only on sex grounds, excluding all males, and that sometimes this is the fair and reasonable thing to do for women and girls.

As far as the guidance being a grey area as suggested by women and equalities

They didn't say it's a grey area they basically said that the current guidance is shit and we should have proper new statutory code.

The law that a blanket ban is unlawful, and must take place on a case-by-case basis

This is not the law.

People telling you that we aren't are deliberately misinterpreting the EA.

Spot on Orchid. That's an excellent resource.

Thanks Ereshkigal, I hadn't seen that twitter thread before. It's handy to have all the changes to the EHRC guidance in one simple list.

Also I have checked with official channels, there was no EHRC guidance updated last year that changed any limitations, exemptions or guidance regarding trans access to 'female spaces'.

This is what you said. My bold. And as has been demonstrated, you and your friend are wrong.

Yes, as I said there has been no updates on guidance that changes any mechanism that has been in place since 2010. Much less a change of law, so things will continue more or less as they have done since 2010.

The law that a blanket ban is unlawful, and must take place on a case-by-case basis, is still inline with no GRC or SRS required to be covered in the first place.

The requirements to be covered in the first place by gender re-assignment P.C. is irrelevant to triggering exemptions, and can not be triggered on lack of GRC or SRS alone, there must be a deeper reasoning, neither will discomfort meet that criteria.

As far as the guidance being a grey area as suggested by women and equalities, I already covered this when I said above, it is almost entirely unenforceable, and unless something that is legal now, becomes explicitly against the law, the discussion is almost entirely a thought exercise with no practical application.

As such, there has been virtually no problems with the current system, the idea there is any kind of legal justification or mandate to roll back equality laws and stipulate obstacles trans women must pass to enter these spaces, and then to pay for some sort of policing at the point of entrance of every such space, is fantasy.

Please give your organisation a copy of this briefing document by Louise Whitfield: https://www.equallyours.org.uk/deighton-pierce-glynn-briefing-on-how-legislation-protects-women-only-spaces-and-services/

It sets out the legislation very clearly. Women are allowed single sex spaces. People telling you that we aren't are deliberately misinterpreting the EA.