Equality act question

It is very important but where it conflicts with the GRA, the GRA usually wins!

Do you mean the EA here? A person without a GRC can't be protected by the GRA because they don't have a GRC. But they still have protection under the PC of gender reassignment in the EA.

Not offended at all, @AmateurNoun. IANAL and clarity is crucial.

Service providers can rely on the single sex exemption where appropriate to provide female only services. They should make sure they have sound reasons for doing so even if the only people who should be able to bring a claim are transwomen with GRCs.

From a gender critical POV this is both common sense and compassionate. Firing an employee, or refusing service to a customer, because their cross-dressing makes you uncomfortable is arseholery of the highest degree. Refusing to allow an employee to use opposite-sex toilets, or refusing intimate services to a customer of the opposite sex to you, because their cross-dressing makes you uncomfortable is entirely reasonable.

Even if you apply the same-sex comparator until such time as the trans ID'd person chooses to produce their GRC, you don't need to be an arse about it.

Great informative comments. The worry in relation to the school context mentioned by the OP is that schools have been told by trans activists to see children as having the capacity to consent to "gender reassignment", even toddlers. When all this mess was enshrined in law, MPs never anticipated that that it would ever be applied to children, so they were not mentioned in the legislation. But as everyone involved in safeguarding children knows, as soon as there's an opportunity, some adults will exploit it.

We're now in a position where even the youngest of children have been taught that their bodies may be incorrectly sexed but can be fixed with drugs and surgery - and that's a great thing yay!

In the absence of a clear distinction between adults and children, those working with children have been pressurised and threatened to abandon safeguarding and immediately affirm, even little children. The Rachel Meade case shows how extreme these pressures are in social work and they're identical in education, the NHS, charities & politics.

Until the vulnerability of children to social grooming / contagion is accepted, nothing will change. I fear that the adults dismissive of the need to safeguard children are currently in control and the evidence shows they're reluctant to give up that power.

Apologies Jellysaurus I somehow missed this but if your post!

Yet a person's GRC status is secret, so they may have the right to be treated by me as the opposite sex.

I probably sounded too harsh as I see so many people overstate the importance of GC beliefs being protected. It is very important but where it conflicts with the GRA, the GRA usually wins! The courts are going anyway it seems like even without a GRC certain things like using sex-based pronouns may be harassment.

I clearly need a coffee. Apologies again.

Michael Foran is very good at explaining the law on this in an understandable way. He’s worth a follow on Twitter if you’re on there. Even he says it’s complex and it’s his area of expertise so it’s no wonder the rest of us have brain meltdown when trying to grasp how it all works.

https://thecritic.co.uk/on-protecting-characteristics/

The belief that it is impossible to change sex is also protected in law. If I see a male person presenting as, or claiming to be, a woman, my right to treat them as a man is protected.

This is not accurate. You have a right to your beliefs, but can only manifest them (i.e. put them into action) where this is permitted by law. If they have a GRC then they will have changed their legal sex. There are some areas where transwomen with GRCs are treated in ways which are not the same as women but you can't just generally ignore the GRC outside those areas.

As the overwhelming majority of people claiming the PC of GR do not have a GRC, it would seem logical to apply the same-sex comparator until such time as they choose to produce their GRC.

Again, this is not an accurate description of the law, which I think is what OP was looking for in this thread. Service providers can rely on the single sex exemption where appropriate to provide female only services. They should make sure they have sound reasons for doing so even if the only people who should be able to bring a claim are transwomen with GRCs.

Apologies if this sounds patronising but in threads like this I think we need to stick to what the law says, and not fall into the same traps as Stonewall.

Happy to be corrected there. Thanks.

The single sex exceptions were put in even for men with a GRC as I understand it. So women's sports can exclude all men regardless of possession of a GRC.

And absolutely the assumption should be that a man is legally a man unless he produces a birth certificate to prove he is legally a woman.

Passports and driving licences can be changed without a GRC so give no indication of legal sex.

What a mess.

The belief that it is impossible to change sex is also protected in law. If I see a male person presenting as, or claiming to be, a woman, my right to treat them as a man is protected.

Yet a person's GRC status is secret, so they may have the right to be treated by me as the opposite sex.

These two rights are in direct conflict with each other.

As the overwhelming majority of people claiming the PC of GR do not have a GRC, it would seem logical to apply the same-sex comparator until such time as they choose to produce their GRC.

This is important because if the comparator is another 'person', then a transwman - ie a male with the PC of GR - can claim they are being are being treated unfavourably to a woman - ie a female without the PC of GR. Using 'person' like this is Stonewall-style language to deliberately muddy the issue.

The issue is actually slightly more complex as the comparator changes upon obtaining a GRC - see R (Green) v SSJ.

Transwoman without GRC - comparator is non-trans male

Transwoman with a GRC - comparator is non-trans female

A person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is compared a person without gender reassignment. So a man who claims gender reassignment who starts wearing dresses and makeup cannot be treated less favourably than a person who wears trousers and no makeup, all else being roughly the same.

This is wrong.

A person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is compared a person without gender reassignment. So a man who claims gender reassignment who starts wearing dresses and makeup cannot be treated less favourably than a man who wears trousers and no makeup, all else being roughly the same.

The comparator for a male who claims the PC of gender reassignment is another male who does not claim the PC of gender reassignment.

This is important because if the comparator is another 'person', then a transwman - ie a male with the PC of GR - can claim they are being are being treated unfavourably to a woman - ie a female without the PC of GR. Using 'person' like this is Stonewall-style language to deliberately muddy the issue.

It's absolutely considered proportionate to keep changing rooms and toilets single sex. Unfortunately Stonewall were very successful in convincing people that self-id was going to be introduced and it was better to make changes ahead of the law.

Service providers have the option of limiting services to biological sex where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The problems however are twofold:

A) most service providers choose not to apply those provisions. They want to be seen as LGBT friendly or just don't want to risk litigation (there have been zero cases in this area yet); and

B) in practice, we have self-ID by default, because service providers won't know who has been through the process of obtaining a GRC (which is intended to act as a gatekeeping function) and who has just decided to transition. I know a lot of women who wouldn't mind post-operative transwomen sharing toilets/changing rooms, but GRCs are granted to those who are pre-operative and there is no way to tell who has a GRC or not in any event. IIRC the EHRC guidance says service providers should generally assume people will choose the appropriate facilities, which is effectively self-ID in practice.

The important thing is to understand how the Equality Act works. A protected characteristic is protected in relation to a reference comparator.

So a woman has the protected characteristic of sex meaning she can't be treated less favourably than a man in the same situation. E.g. can't be paid less if she has the same skills as a man doing the same job.

A person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is compared a person without gender reassignment. So a man who claims gender reassignment who starts wearing dresses and makeup cannot be treated less favourably than a person who wears trousers and no makeup, all else being roughly the same.

Both men and women have the protected characteristic of sex but only people with gender reassignment have that protected characteristic.

The Act aims to protect both groups rights, and balance them where necessary (e.g. by permitting single sex services for women which are not open to transwomen where this for a good reason and done in a proportionate way).

You need to have some protection for people who are going through gender reassignment too because you used to have the situation where people could be fired upon announcing their intention to transition.