Woman banned from Council gyms...guess why? Protest 10th Jan at 1 pm see post on pg.7

She was quite clear what the legal risk to organisations is. No one said it was a criminal offence to fail to keep men out of female spaces.

Well yes. As they would be er…. Breaking the law.

Yes, I understand that. My question was what repercussions will they stand to face for non-compliance once the new COP goes through.

Then they will be breaking the law and subject to any person upset suing the fuck out of them.

But are we talking 'breaking the law' in the same way that a shop selling booze to a 16 year old can be fined and their staff criminally prosecuted, rather than a civil matter?

They aren’t offering single sex facilities then, it’s a lie. You can’t get around it by putting the word “inclusive” in. If you let any men in they are not female only.

Then they will be breaking the law and subject to any person upset suing the fuck out of them. Which the claimant would win. You can’t claim a facility is single sex then make it mixed sex. They’d have to state all facilities were mixed sex. Which is fine. That would mean though that anyone of either sex could enter any of their facilities. They couldn’t have “women and some males”. It would be all mixed sex. As males with a trans identity claim male facilities are “unsafe”, I don’t think they’d be too happy with that scenario, do you?

Ah, understood.

So do we know what repercussions a UK service provider will face if they don't comply with the new COP?

E.g. - If a swimming pool offers single-sex facilities, but has an 'inclusive' policy that allows people to access them based on 'gender identity' rather than biological sex.

That is in Texas. Not the UK.

A saw a post suggesting that service providers offering single-sex facilities would have a legal duty to ensure that they could only be accessed by those of the correct biological sex. That they could face penalties for being in breach etc.

I think Fiona would have got hers from https://www.violetvend.com/accessories-homeware as a way of supporting the Women’s Rights Network.

Can you explain what “legal responsibility ” you’re referring to @Kimura?

I don’t know what exactly is going to be in the new COP, only ministers and the EHRC do.

I think it’s the case that organisations either don’t feel confident implementing the SC ruling or that the lack of up to date guidelines means their TRA networks can claim that they will be in breach based on the old guidelines, which the EHRC suggested should be revoked as no longer compliant. The government has not done this.

The EHRC has said more than once that all organisations should act based on the law that has been in existance since 2010 and not wait until the guidance is agreed by Parliament.

So it's a case of organisations not feeling confident in defending against discrimination cases based on the EHRCs statements alone, and the Govt is effectively holding a silent amnesty until they have their own house in order?

Is it right that the govt's COP will make service providers legally responsible for ensuring that any service or facility offered as 'single sex' actually remains so?

The law has been clarified by the Supreme Court judgement and is clear. The EHRC guidance will not change the law and the EHRC has said more than once that all organisations should act based on the law that has been in existance since 2010 and not wait until the guidance is agreed by Parliament.

they're still clearly in breach of the law.

Is this right? As I understood it (please correct me if I'm wrong), the government hasn't yet published their official code of practice, which will then need ministerial sign-off and to be laid in parliament before it gains legal weight.

I understand the government wanting to take the time to get this right in order to avoid legal as many of the inevitable legal challenges as possible, but it feels like the foot-dragging has gone on for far too long.

Yes.

A believe a person born a man is a man and a person born a woman is a woman. Changing gender is a coverup literally. Inside the person is their original gender.

Indeed!

Also of note is that the gaps in their otherwise impeccable knowledge serve to let them have a good old scold, a finger wag and a sigh of disappointment at us nasty uppity women. Funny that 🤔

@NeverOneBiscuit It's almost an achievement on the part of Pickled to have sustained such lamentable ignorance on so many topics.

“Somebody working in that field would understand why the vast majority of women would not confront a man in a female only space. The remark about few reported incidences is therefore, in my opinion, disingenuous.”

Agreed.

And does anyone believe that every organisation keeps records of every complaint? Every time a woman complains at reception or to a passing staff member do we really think that member if staff fills in an incident report that is diligently recorded and filed to ease data capture and reporting?

Well said HildegardP
I also agree with your last sentence.

Somebody working in that field would understand why the vast majority of women would not confront a man in a female only space. The remark about few reported incidences is therefore, in my opinion, disingenuous.

As is the statement that transwomen are more likely to be victims than perpetrators. The Ministry of Justice data debunks this claim.

As for the inclusion of those with a DSD, & the redhead trope 🤦‍♀️

@Pickledcontext
Women are not support animals for men.

Being "kind" to men with eccentric ideas about themselves &/or sexual fetishes & paraphilias is not an obligation on women. Far from it.

I am female, 1.85m tall & utterly unfeminine. To be mistaken for male is banal for me & as a woman who's spent a lifetime readily correcting that misapprehension, I don't take kindly to manipulative pass-agg posters trying to misrepresent women like me as helpless & bereft of basic communication function in order to further the cause of cross-dressed men (&, per the provisions of the Equality Act, any men of any stripe who fancy toddling into the women's changing room. Either they all stay out or you can't keep any of them out. Which do you want?).

Someone apparently unable to grasp that very basic principle of safeguarding & who affects not to know that paraphilias cluster & constitute elevated risk of sexual offending doesn't seem at all suited to your vaunted work context. I don't know whether to disbelieve you or to assume that you work for Edinburgh RCC.

SirChenjins · Today 16:28
Thank you for the link to the XX tote bag site. I also saw one that said “ Who runs the world. Watermark Girls”. The ‘Watermark’ idea is very apt I think.

Just had a look online and this company sells them - https://www.spreadshirt.co.uk/shop/accessories/bags-backpacks/tote-bags/xx/

Love the tote bags!