Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton

I think the law versus the Stonewall interpretation boils down to the reference category when claiming discrimination.

It can be interpreted that Gender Reassignment is the same as other factors in the equality act - that a man does not lose or gain any rights, is not treated any differently, than he would be without gender Reassignment. So a man called Pete, coming to work the next day as Petra, cannot be fired for that, or paid less, for example. He isn't discriminated against for making this change.

Stonewall interpretation uses women as the reference category, so a woman who became one through gender Reassignment is the same as one who didn't have it, but only for the things men want, like changing rooms with women,not the lower pay women get.

Define ‘best practice’ - Gender reassignment doesn’t outrank sex or religion as a protected characteristic, both of which it can be in contention with when it comes to single sex spaces.

I've followed a lot of these cases and my understanding is as follows. IANAL and interested to hear from any lawyers on this.

Given that Dr Upton doesn't have a GRC, his legal sex is male (regardless of her gender identity). In the recent supreme Court case, it was common ground that someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but without a GRC retains their legal sex. The 1992 regulations pertain to legal sex, and Fife had a clear obligation to provide single (legal) sex changing rooms.

Had Dr Upton had a GRC, the situation would be different and the law unclear: we don't know if his/her legal sex change would be enough to allow him/her to enter the women's changing room. We can expect clarity about that only once we hear from the Supreme Court on the case heard late last year
sex-matters.org/posts/updates/for-women-scotland-in-the-supreme-court/

OP, I expect you will consider this a biased source and I can sympathize with that. The article however contains links to key submissions, which you may find helpful.

Its the forcing the third party that is a big problem.

Getting changed is not a spectator sport in fact there are laws to prevent it become a spectator sport.

NHS Fife is trying to prove a woman has a contractual obligation to provide a strip-show or at least attend one against her will.

Same kind of problem that NHS's across the country have and that leads on to the problem of employing staff who state the intent to assault patients.

If the two laws clash thats up to the Courts to identify and politicians to rectify.

Great user name, OP. Cracking.

NHS Fife could have given this great thought and understood they were in a tricky place. They had to choose between upsetting DrUpton and upsetting all the women (75% of their workforce).

The Legal stuff is under discussion in court, but I agree with PPs- single sex provision is required.

discrimination would be -
stopping DrU using the men’s or the women’s and not providing him space at all (which they didn’t)
suspending Sandie for refusing to change with DrU (which they did).
Allowing DrU in the women’s but not allowing the other men in.

Dr U has the choice of all the changing rooms, Sandie of none.

NHS Fife shameful handling of the case and casual attitude to HR processes is costing them money. I wander how much money has been spent on this instead of patient care.

What a strange post, being talked down to by a student who hasn’t paid more than ‘passing attention’ to the subject they are commenting on.

OP, things end up in court where there is disagreement on the facts (did the behaviour of one person about to harassment of another, for example). One of the reason people on both sides of this deplorably polarised debate are paying so much attention to this case is a disagreement about the law, which is not settled yet.

I'm grateful you gave the correct name of the Equality Act, by the way, pedant that I am! Also lawyer, I'm studying for my professional exams with two degrees which is why I have been following the case very cursorily.

I actually haven't paid more than passing attention and if you come back to this thread I'll look it up, but if the law were unequivocal then it wouldn't be in court. There would also not need to have been a debtate, campaign and several policy changes about self-ID if it were already enshrined in law. 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.

Either way you won't change anything by asserting quite a shaky interpretation of the law at some strangers on a part of this site with extremely strong views. If you want to impress or engage some lawyers I'd suggest actually quoting statute and case law, as well as government policy and any guidance that exists.

Have a great week, all.

If the PC of GR in the Equality Act removes the ability for service providers and employers to provide single sex facilities, the acts need to be ammended to reflect that.

If single sex spaces are illegal, then we need to ensure that that is clear in law.

Not really. The law does protect trans people because it protects everyone and trans people are part of everyone. But it protects no one as a class or group. As PPs have said, changing rooms are segregated by sex so there is no discrimination. Trans women are male and males are excluded from female changing rooms. Even for people with a grc single sex services are explicitly allowed in EA2010.

An example of discrimination covered under the EA would be, say, paying a trans-identifying employee less than everyone else.

It's not discriminating against anyone to say you can't have a choice of changing room. It's fair to everyone to say you're only allowed to go to the CR that matches your sex.

Just like Sandie Peggie, and her other female colleagues, wouldn't have been allowed to change in the men's.

Discrimination means treating someone differently and worse to everyone else.

Wouldn't it be interesting if men other than DrU tried to use the female changing room, were refused and then took out a case against Fife?

Isn’t there a requirement for single sex changing facilities when employees are required to change at work?

Definitely sounds like Dr Upton, then!

Somehow I don’t think inauthentic is remotely interested in listening to anyone telling them they’re wrong

I think Dr Upton is on this thread.....

Discrimination would be if there were no changing facilities provided at all for Dr Upton, the comparison for discrimination is with other men not women in the case of trans identified men, but there are facilities for him, he just wants to use the ones for women.

The Workplace Regulations specifically mandate that employers provide separate toilet facilities for men and women, except where the facilities are in lockable, separate rooms. This requirement is part of health and safety legislation, which has not been superseded by the Equality Act.

The Equality Act does allow for exemptions where providing separate or single-sex services can be justified for reasons like privacy and dignity, but it does not override the specific requirements laid out in the Workplace Regulations.Employers are obligated to comply with the 1992 Regulations regarding toilet facilities in the workplace.

Edited: I quoted the wrong bit of text. Ignore my post, please.

It's stonewall law.

if they let in a biological man with no legal claim to being the opposite sex, then they have to let in all the biological men. Otherwise they're discriminating against every other Tom, Dick or Harry.

If NHS Fife allows transgender employees to use facilities that match their gender identity, they are acting in line with the law and best practice guidance on equality and inclusion.

That’s not the law. That’s the discredited Stonewall ‘interpretation’ of the law. If NHS Fife is following made-up TRA instructions, it is ignoring the law. No wonder it’s in a mess.

You've been misquoting the EA, the Equality act does not mention "Gender identity", neither does any other law to my knowledge.