Incorrect guidance on single-sex spaces and gender self-identification - gov.uk asking for examples

Christ, that reads like a statement of a creed. And when they're talking about boys and men, could they say girls and young women more??

Also

But, this isn’t the case for everyone. Sex doesn’t always determine gender identity. Around 1 in 100 people, maybe more, will find that the gender they have recorded at birth isn’t a good match for who they know themselves to be.

One in a 100??

They also claim the entire batshit statement is based on the law. So it probably is a good candidate for Kemi's barking bin.

This is fun. I've just done one for Girl Guides.

Link to their equality statement if anyone wants to see what they say

https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/policies/equality-and-diversity-policy/

Oh good. The DWP removed the word 'sex' rom their equality statement about 4 years ago and basically laughed at me because 'gender' is inclusive.

I hope this means Kemi will be issuing guidance.

Because i'm sure many service providers, retailers, universities, etc, don't realise that it's perfectly legal to exclude transwomen from women's facilities.

They need to be reassured that they can sex segregate without reprisals.

I'd also like them to be told that if they do have mixed sex facilities, then they need to let customers know and not stealthily slip it past them in the hope it won't put customers off. (I'm looking at you, M&S).

You have identified advice that is clearly wrong.
See:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

@Justme56 i think that guidance is wrong, yes.

Women-only spaces are pretty much always created because of safety, privacy and dignity. They will easily be able to meet the “proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim” to exclude all males, regardless of their trans status.

EHRC guidance:

To rely on the objective justification defence, the employer, service provider or other organisation must show that its policy or age-based rule was for a good reason – that is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.
To prove objective justification:

• the aim must be a real, objective consideration, and not in itself discriminatory (for example, ensuring the health and safety of others would be a legitimate aim)
• working out whether the means is ‘proportionate’ is a balancing exercise: does the importance of the aim outweigh any discriminatory effects of the unfavourable treatment?
• there must be no alternative measures available that would meet the aim without too much difficulty and would avoid such a discriminatory effect

Yes definitely submit both of those!

This is from trans actual. Do you agree this advice is wrong. They have taken ‘case by case’ to mean individual by individual not situation by situation. They are an organisation offering advice.

My local.hospital.does this. So , for rxample, if an unconscious man on a stag do was admitted wearing "womens clothes" and a wig he'd be put on a female ward. 🤔 idiotic.

Excellent that the governemnt (or at least Kemi Badenoch) are on this. Thanks for posting.

https://www.thegymgroup.com/globalassets/documents/transgender-inclusion--equality-policy--002.pdf

Interesting I just googled and found this

I’m reading this as a good thing for women

It’s pro single sex

Also, non-binary is not a thing in law. GR is about identifying as the opposite sex, so saying that you are "non-binary" doesn't give you the PC of gender reassignment.

My interpretation is org A tells org B that it is illegal not to let anyone who claims a trans identity into the female changing rooms. The reality is that it is perfectly legal to do so if the person doesn’t have a GRC (and in some cases even if they do) and you can justify it by eg persons of that sex would object.

it is basically about giving bad advice and not recognising the ability to use exceptions.

Good idea

So providing one male toilet and 58 female toilets in a workplace of roughly equal numbers of male and female employees isn't providing equal access and any male employee would have the right to have that situation addressed.

I said I would stop posting about this but I can see there is a confusion which needs to be nipped in the bud.

"Self-ID" refers to self identifying as having a legal sex that is different to your bio sex. It does not mean declaring that you have a trans identity. Any MCW or WCM has the PC of GR - as does anyone with a GRC, but only those with a GRC have changed their sex for legal purposes. The sex of the other MCW and WCM is not legally changed by claiming a trans identity.

I think the uncertainty XiaoXong refers to is whether non-binary people (or catgender etc, I assume) are covered by the PC of GR. That is nothing to do with self-ID.

Therefore under the Equality Act, the default provision is to not limit trans people and therefore the policy, by default, is to allow trans people to use any space they like based on self-ID. This is the legal default - and therefore all the policies you mention are not illegal.

Trans people are NOT being limited by being required to use the changing rooms of their natal sex though.

Being rejected from a hotel or job interview because they are trans is clearly illegal and what the EA is for. Not to provide access to facilities of their desired gender. As long as their access to said facilities is equal to everyone else's that's treating them as equal.

The EA protects trans people from discrimination and treating someone differently (not letting them choose a toilet) because of thier gender reassignment could be discrimination because that's the sole reason they're being treated differently.

The EA doesn't say you can't treat people differently. It says you can't treat them worse purely because they have a PC. So a male who identifies as a woman can't be treated worse than male who doesn't. It doesn't say a male who identifies as a woman has to be treated the same as a woman.

Not just advisory bodies - public bodies or organisations that advise public bodies. So schools, hospitals etc all count.

The Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking examples of policy or guidance in which public bodies – or organisations that advise public and private organisations – wrongly suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender.

The law is a mess. EA2010 is not precise enough which has allowed the PC of gender reassignment to be claimed by every Tom, Dick and Harriet (nee Harry). Education legislation requires schools to provide single-sex facilities for children over the age of 8.

It's interesting to read the debates in Hansard on GRC2004. There was a lot of very uninformed commentary but what is striking is the emphasis that this was a compassionate act for a very small number of people who were suffering from a debilitating condition. And that transsexuals were deeply concerned about their privacy. A lot different from the situation we have today.

@Kidspartytroll the comparator is the person who doesn't have that protected characteristic - is the person with the protected characteristic being treated worse than someone without it.

So - man who know he's a man, or woman who knows she's a woman, neither have the PC of gender reassignment. Has right to use toilet that matches their sex.

Man who believes he's a woman or woman who believes she's a man and proposes to undergo gender reassignment has the PC of GR. Also has right to use toilet matching their sex. Doesn't have right to use toilet for opposite sex but crucially neither does the man or woman who doesn't have the PC of GR. No discrimination as the person with the protected characteristic is not being treated any worse.

Activists have tried to argue that in fact toilets are segregated by gender rather than sex but this doesn't hold up - hence the aggressive attempts to claim that trans people have actually "changed sex" when in fact all that has changed is gender. No amount of surgery or hormones can cause a human to change sex.

Now, if we get into people who have socially transitioned but no intention of surgery, there is a significant grey area. It's clear from Hansard that at the time the EA 2010 was drafted, "gender reassignment" was understood to be something well beyond mere social transition, ie. surgery, but along the way activists have pushed to redefine this PC as being gained by social transition alone.

There is no provision in law which says anyone can self-ID. It's not a default position. There may be confusion but the legal situation is clear. Only a GRC changes your legal sex.

You've got the wrong end of the stick regarding discrimination protection.
Men who claim to be women (MCW) are still men. Men can lawfully be excluded from women-only provision on the grounds of sex, so a MCW who is excluded is not being treated differently from the other men.

If there was a men-only group and MCW were excluded then that would be unlawful discrimination on the grounds of GR. Because all the other men were allowed in.

If a coffee shop had a sign up saying they didn't serve MCW or WCM, that could be unlawful discrimination on the grounds of GR because all the other people are being served.

I'm not going to carry on with this because it's derailing the thread.

Stonewall actively campaigned to get rid of the sex exemptions and had it overtly written on their website. They were absolutely confident that they would successfully remove them from the EA, they had Crispin Blunt in EHRC and John Bercow as Speaker.

They advised many organisations to get ‘ahead’ of the law and get rid of single sex toilets and so on as a way of ‘saving money’ when they were sure their campaigning would be successful - so advised companies wouldn’t need to do it later when this ‘inevitable’ change in law occurred.

The EA protects trans people from discrimination and treating someone differently (not letting them choose a toilet) because of thier gender reassignment could be discrimination because that's the sole reason they're being treated differently.

Eh? The rest of us can't "choose a toilet" either, we use the one appropriate for our sex.