Equality Act

Self ID meant that you could get a GRC, without living for two years in role and without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

So download the form from the Internet, fill it out, send off a cheque, and get your certificate in the post the following week.

Women were told, over and over, that it was just an admin thing. A nice-to-have. But it turns out that no, it alters the comparator when you are talking about whether you can or can't discriminate.

Yes, it's confusing. Because no one dreamed that the law would be twisted to allow things like rapists into women's prisons.

Yes, the wording says something like undergoing or proposing to undergo gender reassignment. But then doesn't even properly define gender reassignment, other than 'changing attributes', which could be interpreted as clothes or anything. But as you have the protected characteristic even if you are just considering it, it's fairly meaningless.

You also don't have to be considering it at all. You can be discriminated against on the basis that someone thinks you are.

Like someone could discriminate against you on the basis that they think you are gay.

What it means is you can't be treated differently to somebody who doesn't have that protected characteristic.

In terms of how that relates to women, if a man has a GRC, the comparator is someone else of their same legal sex. So it would be a woman. If they don't have a GRC, it's a man.

So without a GRC, are you treating this person differently to any other man?

With a GRC, are you to treating this person differently to a woman?

Also, there are still exemptions built in even with a GRC. No-one at all was making a law that said, eg, rape survivors can't choose the sex of their counsellor, men can play women's sports, and rapists can share cells with women.

But the definitions are woolly. I was told that the law often does this deliberately, to leave room for interpretations.

Originally TRAs claimed that a GRC was just an admin issue. But it became quite clear, that the correct interpretation would be that a GRC impacted on which sex a man would be compared with.

Take all Women shortlists, for instance. It could be argued that it was legal for a man with a GRC to be on one, because they were legally female. But a man without a GRC is still legally male and cant be.

Ann Sinnott is seeking legal clarification from the EHRC, the body who is meant to provide guidance about the law.

They have been providing the wrong guidance, and she is demanding the correct interpretation, and proper clarification. Precisely because so many lobby groups are interpreting the law to the huge detriment of women.

If you google her fundraising, she has an easy to understand explanation about it.

If the person has a GRC the comparator for discrimination is an actual woman as the GRC holder is legally female. If they don’t have a GRC then, as described above by gardenbird48, the comparator is a man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Exemptions in the GRA and the Equality Act allow you to discriminate against a GRC holder for a legitimate reason.

The point Ann Sinnott is raising is that EHRC guidelines were produced saying it would be likely to be illegal to have female only spaces that MTF trans people couldn't access, under the Equality Act. This is a false claim.

Yes. The Equality Act states for most things you cannot discriminate based on gender reassignment, but there are single sex exemptions which acknowledges that in some areas, excluding individuals based on sex meets a legitimate aim. With this you can exclude based on sex, not gender reassignment. So for example, a woman’s cricket team could lawfully exclude a TW (even with a GRC) based on the fact that a TW is male and the exclusion is based on sex, but couldn’t exclude a TM because exclusion would be based on gender reassignment, not sex.

This would be a legitimate aim- based on safety, fairness and equity of access. Obviously lots of places completely ignore this and admit the TW - prisons, hospital wards etc - hence Ann Sinnott’s claim.

There was a good legal feminist blog that explains it - if anyone can post.

The pc of Gender Reassignment is acquired by anyone who has started any aspect of transitioning (I can’t get at the exact EA wording atm but can attach a link if it hasn’t already been done while I write this). So there is not medical or GRC requirement just a simple declaration of intent.

The point that may be most relevant to your question is that the pc of Gender Reassignment protects that person from discrimination for transitioning. It does NOT confer the rights of the opposite sex on the transitioner.

So someone transitioning is protected from being sacked or bullied because of their trans status but it does not give them the right to access spaces and facilities of the opposite sex.

For discrimination purposes the comparator for a transwoman would be another male. So if the male is not given certain privileges, the transwoman wouldn’t either.

The website Feminist Current gives some useful examples like when the transwoman claimed discrimination because a female patient wanted a female carer. The comparator for that case would be a male who would also have been rejected so no discrimination.

If a person has a GRA it is slightly different (I’m not sure exactly how) but it is still lawful to exclude a male transgender person from female spaces like toilets, changing rooms, female hospital wards etc (these are given as examples on the explanatory notes for the EA 2010).

‘Confusion’ on this has been artificially created by organisations with vested interests (Stonewall et al) but looking at the text of the law and the clear examples in the explanatory notes I don’t see why there is any confusion at all.

I also thought that this was the point that Ann Sinnott is raising in her case.

The point Ann Sinnott is raising is that EHRC guidelines were produced saying it would be likely to be illegal to have female only spaces that MTF trans people couldn't access, under the Equality Act. This is a false claim.

It says undergone 'or proposing to undergo' which is vague

And just to clarify you don't need medical transition to get a GRC.

No it doesn't.

No, it is woolly and vague, which is a large part of the problem, but a GRC isn't necessary.