Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you understand the official guidance from the EHRC which is here:
Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions | EHRC

This gives examples of situations where it is lawful to exclude someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from the single sex spaces of their desired sex. It is legal to do this if you have good reason 'for example, dignity, privacy, preventing trauma or ensuring the health and safety of others'. Excluding transwomen from a communal changing room can clearly be justified on theese grounds.

It also points out the necessity to balance the needs of people with different protected characteristics, eg sex or belief. It is NOT the law that 'gender reassignment' trumps all the other protected characteristics.

The Equality Act does not make it unlawful for service providers to exclude transwomen from women's spaces, but it does not put them under an obligation to exclude them. But as the commentary notes, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 do place obligations on Employers to provide single sex toilets, and changing rooms if they are required.

From what we have heard so far, it seems vanishingly unlikely that NHS Fife made any effort to balance the needs of Dr Upton against the needs of employees with other protected characteristics before allowing Dr Upton to use the women's changing room.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but if this guidance correctly reflects the Equality Act, I think the Act should be amended. If there is justification to offer a single sex service to women, it should be COMPULSORY to exclude transwomen from that service. If there is a need to exclude some men, there is a need to exclude them all.

He doesn't have an GRC, OP, so he remains legally male.

In terms of the Equality act it means he can't be discriminated against on the basis of his gender assignment status. Which means he can't be treated any differently to any other man. You can't treat him differently to any other man just because he's trans.

At the moment, all the other men in the hospital, could claim that they are being discriminated against, unless they are allowed in the changing room too. On the basis of their sex.

The changing room can exclude all men on the basis of sex, fine. But not all men except one.

Stonewall has claimed that he can't be treated differently to any woman. That's wrong.

Discrimination in favour of trans people, and against others of the same legal sex, is not illegal.

In fact and in law Dr Upton is male. Also, apparently, somewhat stupid (that simpering rubbish about being biological and 'female' made me genuinely embarrassed for him and his supporters) and sadistic (to seek to have a woman punished for being unwilling to undress in front of him). Those supporting him in light of what has been revealed during the tribunal so far are disappointing human beings.

Yeah funny time to post if you are in the UK.

I do post at weird hours, myself, so it's possible but...

My thoughts exactly, Red. In fact I scrolled back up a couple of posts ago to see what time the original post was made.

A grey rock for you x

Correct

Self identification is not the law in the U.K.

Dr Upton is legally a man. Men can and should be excluded from female changing rooms. He is a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act. That does not change his sex. The only thing that could do that is a GRC, which he plainly didn’t have, as he hadn’t been living in the so called acquired gender long enough.

As for not being able to ask if someone has a GRC, we surely cannot have the absolutely bonkers situation where someone claims to have a right that it confers, and then they can say it is illegal for their employer to ask for proof they have that right?!

The only way they may possibly gain a legal "woman" status when it comes to single sex spaces is by applying for a gender recognition certificate

And I should add, the law says it is possible to exclude them from women's spaces even then if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

All this shows the stranglehold that men who claim to be women are having on the social contract, women's rights and the safety of children. Mangling the law to wedge a man in to a space where women are undressed. Whingeing posts claiming that single sex spaces "restricts everyone's freedoms". Endless faux legalistic posts on a board predominated by women, all aimed at ensuring that men - including the most predatory and dangerous of men - MUST be allowed access to women & girls undressing for .... reasons.

YY.

There are specific provisions for single sex spaces in the Equality Act 2010. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not mean that men who identify as women are seen as women under the law when it comes to single sex spaces or other protections, just that they are protected from discrimination and harassment, within limits.

The only way they may possibly gain a legal "woman" status when it comes to single sex spaces is by applying for a gender recognition certificate and that itself is disputed, see the current Supreme Court case.

But Greyskybluesky said it far more calmly than I did :

"Anyway, grey rock time". 😂

All this shows the stranglehold that men who claim to be women are having on the social contract, women's rights and the safety of children. Mangling the law to wedge a man in to a space where women are undressed. Whingeing posts claiming that single sex spaces "restricts everyone's freedoms". Endless faux legalistic posts on a board predominated by women, all aimed at ensuring that men - including the most predatory and dangerous of men - MUST be allowed access to women & girls undressing for .... reasons.

Fuck that shit. Women say no. And so do men. In vastly increasing numbers.

Away with all this predatory nonsense, positioning women and girls as support humans for sad men. There's no point in engaging with those who are so fundamentally flawed that they're unable to respect the boundaries of women and girls and our rights to safety, privacy and dignity.

I imagine we won't be hearing from the OP for a while, given that they're in a different time zone.

Not that posters from outside the UK aren't welcome, as long as they have something constructive to add.

Anyway, grey rock time.

If I could post a pic it would be of a rock. Grey in colour.

Exactly this. It's really not hard! Unless you're NHS Fife and / or a TRA!

My local hospital (England) has the same rules as Fife, it's worth asking your local hospital what their rules are and raising any concerns with them.

Any man can use any female facilities with no certificate or change to his body whatsoever under the rules currently in place.

The relevant legislation is the Workplace Regulations 1992 which make it mandatory to provide separate changing facilities for men and women.
Dr Upton is not a woman therefore has no right to be in the women's changing room.
It's no more complicated than that.

Finally, whatever the legal definition of male and female (words you used) are, it will not be based on self-ID, and the law on the meaning of gender reassignment will draw heavily on GRCs and the process of getting one, because that is the way the law recognises gender reassignment.

Except that isn't right. There is no requirement to have a GRC, or be in the process of getting one, to have the PC of gender reassignment. See the wording of the EA here and how a person qualifies: www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

No the statement is incorrect because we don't have restrooms in Scotland, we have toilets and changing rooms.

So the statement has clearly been rehashed by an American rather than by someone who understands anything about the UK either north or south of the Scottish border.

Language matters. It reveals that there's someone not even in this country has an agenda over this case.