Best tweet ever on trans madness

[AssignedPerfectAtBirth]

twitter.com/half_half_lady/status/927434611923341312

Had to post it

If women is interpreted on the basis of gender identity then they are considered discriminated against, if by sex then no.

Presumably this transgender person isn't going to be stood in the cubicle with you? What's the problem?

robinR
Whats the problem?

1. If someone appears to be a male at the moment we can legally challenge them. After gender self ID all they have to do is state they identify as female and carry on filming. And we can be prosecuted for a hate crime.

2. Some women including Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Romany, need women only medical sercices and private spaces. They will no longer be able to ask for a biologically female doctor. Or a female only domestic violence shelter, or rape crisis centre.
   We try to encourage women out into public life, this will drive them back into the home.

So much for 'intersectional feminism' if it excludes some women but includes someone with a penis how is it feminism at all?
Now do you see theres a problem for women? Other women maybe, not you?

No morning, you are completely wrong. The Equality Act has superceded that from 1992, and classes anyone who is going through transition as already having a GRC (Hence employers not being allowed to ask for one). You're basing your information from an Act from 26 years ago that has since been superceded by both the 2005 Gender Recognition Act AND the 2010 Equality Act.

Anyone going through transition is now considered covered due to the 2010 Act. Previous legislation is not relevant to the situation. You might want to read the actual Act itself.

Describing it as a "criminal breach" when it is the actual guidelines and expected situation nowadays is completely incorrect and spreading misleading information.

www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2016/07/23965.pdf

You might want to read the section regarding "transgender workers" as nowadays the expectation is that they start using their chosen toilet from the moment they begin presenting.

"Agreement needs to be reached on the point at
which use of any gender-specific uniform or facilities,
such as toilets and changing facilities, will be
changed. It is appropriate to agree with the employer
that the individual starts to use the facilities for their
new gender at the point where they begin to attend
work in that gender.
Other approaches, such as requiring the trans
person to use unisex toilets for disabled workers, will
not be appropriate (unless, of course, the individual
is disabled), except in the very short term and at the
request of the worker who is transitioning. It will be
necessary for the employer to explain the situation to
immediate work colleagues as well."

Morning: also, from Government Equalities Office guidance to employers: “a trans person should be free to select the facilities appropriate to the gender in which they present. For example, when a trans person starts to live in their acquired gender role on a full time basis they should be afforded the right to use the facilities appropriate to the acquired gender role. Employers should avoid discriminating against anyone with the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’."

Sorry to quadruple post, but this is important: Morning, the most updated version of the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 is here: www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/l24.pdf

It has been updated many times since the regulations you quote were mentioned. They now NO LONGER EXIST anywhere within the regulations themselves (check it out, full link of all information posted above). They haven't for a while. In fact, 13 refers to falling objects, and 20 (sanitation) makes no reference to what you claim.

There is no penalty or criminality for not providing single-sex bathrooms, nor is there anything but the expectation that workplaces allow transgender people to access the bathroom of their choice during transition in modern legislation.

"Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic now, the Tories changed the Equality Act"

On a point of order, the Equality Act was a 2005 Labour manifesto commitment and was passed by said Labour government in April 2010.

The intent of the Act was clarified prior to it passing.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s04.htm

"The explanatory notes state that a person who was “born physically female” and decides to live as a man, “starts and continues to live as a man”, with no medical intervention at all—just passes as a man—will have undergone gender reassignment. He will have started that process by proposing to do it in the first place, and will have continued it, but if he had started it—had proposed it, but withdrawn—he would still have been covered while he was proposing it."

So basically anyone who even thinks about being trans or non-binary is covered.

The Equality Act has a long list of exceptions:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

"A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex."

Note that if you have a GRC you are legally of that sex "for all purposes" www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

So a man with a GRC is legally of the female sex. So I'm not sure if you can exclude them at all.

A man who is merely 'considering' that is protected from discrimination but that doesn't mean the law recognises them as female.

It just means you can't discriminate against them without good reason.

Regulation 20 of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations REQUIRE that you maintain separate sex toilet UNLESS each toilet is a standalone private unit.

Therefore it seems to me that men without gender recognition certificates should NOT be in women's toilets, and this is not discriminatory as it is a legal requirement to maintain separate sex facilities.

Does the legislation (any/all of it) recognise a difference between males / females and TIMs and TIFs though?

obviously it's nonsense and stupid to say the EA 2010 makes GRCs obsolete, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to pass the current legislation.

Not at all pisacake, it totally does. The regulation you speak of isn't there if you read up, as posted earlier.

Likewise, there is ONLY the ability to discriminate against transpeople in very limited circumstances: "A service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment."

Employers are not allowed to ask for GRC additionally.

You seem to think you know more than lawyers who have successfully proved time and time again that it is unlawful to discriminate against transpeople who are in the process of transition. Workplaces, services, pubs, whatever get fined if they do not allow transpeople to use their chosen toilet.

But of course, delude yourself otherwise. The fact of the matter is that men who are transitioning to women are allowed to use the toilets of their choice under the law. All unions (from Unite to Unison to the teaching unions etc) fight to ensure that workplaces accommodate this.

There are very limited circumstances where we can discriminate against transpeople currently. Toilets is simply not one of them, and to claim otherwise is to spread an untruth that could get women into trouble if they acted on them in the workplace.

And as stated earlier, the thing you claim that exists in the Health and Safety At Work Regulations (Regulation 20) simply isn't there any more: www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/l24.pdf

DJBaggy

Did I miss a bit about filming? Who is filming??

I would expect Romany, Jewish etc women to ask for a female only space if they need one to eg adjust headscarves or whatever. I can't actually imagine what else they need one for but I don't know anyone who is Romany or Jewish so I accept that's my own ignorance

The solution to me seems to be to have only individual gender neutral toilet facilities, a bit like current disabled facilities or those in smaller places which are just individual bathrooms. That seems to solve the who uses what issue.

The current regulation that people are protesting is an attempt that self-declaration is all that is needed to declare yourself a woman, without committing to a transition process. So men with beards and male presentation etc in the women's toilets. It is NOT to allow people in transition the rights that they've already had since 2010. That is farcical to suggest.

I suppose I'm just wondering what the obsession over toilets is. For some reason it always seems to come down to toilets! It seems so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

"Where facilities are single sex,transgender workers should be able to use them according to the gender in which they attend work.

For workers who are transitioning,the employer and worker should agree the point at which the use of single sex facilities should change from one sex to the other. This will usually be the point at which the person begins to
live permanently in the gender with which they identify.

It is not acceptable to insist on transgender workers using separate facilities from other workers for example a unisex wheel chair accessible toilet. "

Unison guidelines (for those that have trouble interpreting the law). If you're suggesting that Unison forces companies and employers to break the law without being challenged, that's a delusional position to take.

robinR: I totally agree. Especially as they've already had the right to use our toilets for years.

There are so many other battles to fight, yet some people are desperate to put all of our energies into fighting a battle that was lost years ago, however much people want to think otherwise.

The current situation is that if a woman is unhappy with a transitioning-transperson using their facilities at work, they can get themselves into trouble by complaining about it. Currently if a male-bodied and male-presenting person uses the women's toilets, that is a fine complaint to make, but if it's against a clearly transitioning transperson then that can lead to a disciplinary if the person keeps it up after having it explained to them. Suggesting otherwise here is putting people's jobs at risk currently. You might want to discuss it with actual lawyers, or union officials, or Human Resources Departments as opposed to just posting your own interpretations of laws.

"Does the legislation (any/all of it) recognise a difference between males / females and TIMs and TIFs though?"

The law allows you to separate things by sex where it is reasonable to do so. So for instance, separating girls and boys in order to subjugate the girls at a co-ed Islamic school recently was found not to be reasonable, whereas separating men's and women's toilets is not only reasonable but specifically required in workplaces that have non-private bathrooms.

In general the law refers to 'sex', however most sex-based distinctions will be discretionary, so it's not necessarily the case that you CAN'T have men in a women's prison.

In the case of a provider that WANTS to provide different (or no) facilities based on biological sex then that is legal IF that is a proportionate aim. Obviously the interpretation of 'proportionate' is tricky.

If it's NOT deemed proportionate, then it will be gender reassignment discrimination.

And if the person has a GRC, then you can't exclude them at all, they are legally of the acquired sex.

Separate sex changing rooms very specifically are proportionate.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/oral/24014.pdf

"The Act allows trans people to be excluded from single-sex
services in some situations. How certain are you that those provisions are used proportionately, appropriately and fairly?
Nicky Morgan: I suspect overall they probably are. I am not sure that we have necessarily evidence. There are certainly examples. I have some here:
female victims of sexual assault; public changing rooms; bathing facilities and toilets, which I know is a huge area; and certain procedures in hospitals where it would be appropriate to have single and separate sex services. We should be very clear this is not a green light for discrimination. There is a line between discrimination and legitimately offering single-sex services. We are aware of only one case, which relates to a pub in Halifax, which was heard at Halifax Crown Court last year. "

www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

The transperson had lived as a women for 20 years and had had GRS (although it's never clear what GRS actually means).

It was a very low level non-binding case in a County Court and it was not clear if the pub had adequate legal representation, nor whether the case was decided on going to the wrong toilet (possibly justified) or being banned from the pub (not justified)

Puresummer, it's literally in the link you provided. Are you deliberately being misleading?

"Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary
conveniences shall not be suitable unless –
(c) separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and
women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate
room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside. "

I'm not suggesting they use the disabled facilities. Im suggesting all toilets become individual gender neutral ones.

Anyway like I say, I don't really get the obsession with toilets.

"whereas separating men's and women's toilets is not only reasonable but specifically required in workplaces that have non-private bathrooms."

No, there is nothing that has found this reasonable discrimination. As shown above, it is in exceptional cases, and not allowing transitioning-transwomen to use single-sex toilet facilities is not "exceptional cases" whatsoever, except in your own opinion.

Like I say, I'd refer anyone to talk to their Human Resources Departments, Union Representatives, or Legal staff before trusting what someone is saying online (that includes myself). They will give you the actual facts of the matter, not a personal interpretation. I have posted the union guidelines here, but those who want to look again just simply have to search for Unite or Unison or NASWLT or NUT transgender workplace guidance to find the truth. Unions actually HAVE to follow and comply with the laws in their guidance, as they have to make sure members have legal representation.

"You seem to think you know more than lawyers who have successfully proved time and time again that it is unlawful to discriminate against transpeople who are in the process of transition. Workplaces, services, pubs, whatever get fined if they do not allow transpeople to use their chosen toilet."

Time and time again? There is literally one non-binding case in a county court against a shitty pub.

Unison etc. guidelines in no way constitute law. Please make reference to actual legislation, cases, Parliamentary statements, etc.

What do you think about other single sex spaces and services, robinR?

I do agree that it's a brave person that ignores these guidelines, which are obviously written in the interests of minimising the risk of discrimination cases, but it doesn't make them binding law whatsoever.

pisacake: no, it is deliberately misleading to suggest that this is somehow a barrier to transwomen gaining access to facilities, as shown again and again by the law and the union guidelines. The claim again and again was that it referred to "single-sex" and "sex based" - it doesn't. It simply says "men" and "women". And as already established, "transwomen" count as women legally for the use of the facilities, hence all union guidelines.

Like I repeat: please anyone reading this, actually talk to your union representatives and human resource departments and avoid getting yourselves into trouble at work.