No to self-ID, so when does a man 'become' a transwoman / woman?

Key word being exceptional. So women's refuge where vulnerable women can be reasonably argued; likewise open changing facilities.

Very unlikely to argue exceptional circumstances for toilets or changing rooms with closed cubicles for instance as the advice currently stands. So challenging a transwoman in the john lewis bathroom is probably not a good idea, as they could go after you.

While it is great to be inclusive, I am afraid that these days when I hear or read 'inclusive' a get a subtext in my head of 'to men that want to muscle in on spaces from which they are excluded on the basis of their SEX'

Posie Parker's epic rant from a year or two back made the point that by being inclusive, organisations are indirectly excluding women and girls who cannot be in spaces containing men for whatever reason

... I know a man (who looks indistinguishable from any other straight man with a 5 o'clock shadow) who identifyies as a "trans girl" and enters women's toilets at his work and in public.

Is he attracted to men or women? Is he in a relationship?

I know a man (who looks indistinguishable from any other straight man with a 5 o'clock shadow) who identifyies as a "trans girl" and enters women's toilets at his work and in public. He doesn't have a GRC but he quickly had his passport changed to state he is "Female". As far as I'm aware this gives no legal rights to use women's services but be aware "female" ID documents do not mean they possess a GRC. A doctor's letter and a bill with the girly name on is what is needed to change the sex on most ID documents in the UK. Of course even a GRC gives no legal right to access women only support services but it's rare that they actually have one when it's so easy to change ID without one.

I would be male if born with a penis, female otherwise. There's a leap from saying a male in a skirt and a female in trousers are doing nothing wrong, to demanding females must be put at risk of rape or threat or fear by penis owners, or even by men whose penises have been surgically altered. A fox may wear a chicken outfit, or even have feathers implanted on his body, and his intentions may be to eat a chicken or to attempt to 'be' one, but either way, it makes no difference to the hens, who will still be afraid when he is inside their chicken coop.

(His wish might, instead, be to dress as Napoleon, or to go further and 'be' Napoleon by having an arm and an eye surgically removed, but it won't make him Napoleon, and, if she were alive, it wouldn't entitle him to get into Josephine's bedroom)

When they have the op.

@Shedbuilder the case about the comparator being male is Green v SSOJ, para 66 www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7bb60d03e7f57eb1a1f/amp

Feel free to PM if you want an eye cast over the draft letter or want to discuss.

Interestingly, fair play for women and keep prisons single sex are helping a woman launch a judicial review based on the fact that it's discriminatory towards women to include male prisoners in their prison.

It my understanding that it's put women in danger, where it wouldn't have put man in the same danger and therefore is indirectly discriminatory, as they end up being treated differently.

I can't see why a women's support centre wouldn't fit the same criteria.

It's putting those women, who are vulnerable, in more danger than it would men, in the same circumstances. Because women are more likely to be raped, attacked, and intimidated, than men.

I'm just spitballing, but it looks the same to me?

Which might help, if the funders of the centre are being targeted next.

It is interesting to hear the legal discussion at the moment from the US perspective. The “switching” of the correct “Same sex” comparator Really does mess things up. I suppose, the argument is, how does one protect passing trans people from being persecuted if “outed”. Eg i shouldn’t be able to evict/fire someone if I find out after the fact they are trans. The idea being that knowing someone is actually a trans woman rather than biologically female Shouldn't be used to discriminate. But then, having a GRA has nothing to do with how well you pass...

From over on this side of the pond, the recent SCOTUS case, if you read the majority opinion, clearly uses the same sex as the comparator for the trans woman. “But for being female, the trans woman would not have been fired”. That is to say, Firing was unjustified because the TW in question was Male (But wearing the female uniform), and sex is a protected characteristic. So far so good.

The proposed US Equality Act on the other hand is apparently a mess as no definitions are given for sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity - they are entirely conflated throughout. Check out CallieBurt.org for a legal analysis

@CharlieParley I never said it would be a criminal offence but it could be discriminatory to do do. Especially as I assume they don't ask everyone else for proof. I'm not saying its morally right but something for people to be aware of.

Also worth considering how would your friends group treat a woman if they were threatening and aggressive. You could argue irrelevant of the persons sex/gender, they should be excluded on behaviour grounds and that is exactly how a woman would be treated, so you are treating them as a woman.

Your friend could hold her nerve with legal advice

This.

It's legal.

If the trans person actually takes it to the wire and sues, it will result in the fastest ever successful crowdfunder in history.

There is not much case law and the EHRC guidance is bad. But the thing to remember is that each protected characteristic works seperately. So the comparator for someone with the PC "gender reassignment* is someone without that PC.

Most services are not single sex. So primarily a trans person should not be refused service in a restaurant or entry to a nightclub or a train ticket etc (or treated badly in those services) and they shouldn't lose their job -- because they are trans.

There are limited situations where sex discrimination is allowed and there you can argue that this means sex. Eg in a woman's service - a man wouldn't be allowed in. Say the next day he announced he is deciding to transition he'd be covered by "GR" but still you could say no -- for the same reason as before.

Your friend could hold her nerve with legal advice -- tell her to get in touch if she wants connecting to some.

Obviously it needs to be appropriate to the situation. That is, it needs to be a situation where you need to prove some aspect of your identity.

In this case though I would turn this person down by referring to the sex-based exemption that applies to the service. As long as the service has always excluded adult males from accessing the female-only part (in case it offer other types of services, too) and has a legitimate reason, they are legally entitled to do so.

Letting this person in on the other hand will create a precedent that may have a detrimental impact on their ability to exclude all males in the future.

(Letting a male in who remains legally male means you might be unlawfully discriminating against all other males, regardless of how they identify, if you exclude them. No one has tested this in court yet, but the Equality Act makes it quite clear that the only way you can lawfully discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex is if the sex-based exemptions have been used. And they must be used consistently.)

The statement also makes clear that in using the sex-based exemptions, possession of a GRC does not mean they cannot be excluded from an opposite sex facility or service:

There are some exceptions permitting different treatment on the basis of gender reassignment, for example the exceptions related to single-sex services and associations. These exceptions do not hinge on whether or not an individual has a GRC.

Here is the EHRC clarification stating that there is a difference between two people sharing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment depend ing on whether they have legally changed sex, i.e. got a GRC.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

In "Tina"'s case she has two very strong masculine stereotypes in her (Northern working class) family - her dad and her brother. Perhaps in a different family set up she would have been comfortable being gay?

There does seem to be an unpleasantly homophobic undercurrent to lots of transitioner's stories.

In the vast majority of cases it is easy to discern a person's sex from the way they look/sound/walk/behave in real life - photos can be a bit more difficult, I'll give you that

Yes, I agree.

jdoejnr1 In the vast majority of cases it is easy to discern a person's sex from the way they look/sound/walk/behave in real life - photos can be a bit more difficult, I'll give you that