Victoria Derbyshire today and Girlguides

[AgnesBadenPowell]

Did anyone see Victoria Derbyshire on BBC2 this morning? Interesting discussion about transgender people and self ID. One of the speakers mentioned Girlguiding, which caught my attention as I am a Leader and I’ve had similar concerns but few people to discuss it with IRL.

You might have seen the press coverage (and threads here) about the changes to Girlguiding UK’s policy on inclusivity for transgender members

As a leader it’s my duty to implement the policy. I also have a duty of care to the girls in my unit. I’ve thought long and hard about this and in my view, GG has got it wrong.

GGUK recognises gender self identity, which is “a person’s inner sense of being a girl or a woman”. A male child who identifies as a girl can enroll as a rainbow, brownie, guide or ranger and a male who identifies as a woman can make the Guide promise and become a leader. Leadership roles have historically been women only (although men can volunteer for support roles that don’t need the promise and aren’t in charge of units).

The policy states that transgender children should use the accommodation of their acquired gender on camp. Parents of other children should not be informed - leaders are told it is neither required or best practice. Remember that Guiding also permits adult leaders (including men who identify as women) to share accommodation with children; it’s not the preferred option and at least 2 adults should always be present in the tent or guide hut but it does happen.

I have written to GGUK to outline my concerns:

1. the policy allows, for example, a 14 yo biological male Guide to share sleeping accommodation with a 10 year old female Guide.NSPCC advice is that children over 10 do not share a bedroom with the opposite sex. It’s not unreasonable for parents to expect GG to follow this advice. Why aren’t we?

1. The policy does not acknowledge the embarrassment a teen may feel when dealing with periods, washing and bathing in shared facilities with a person they may have known as a boy.

1. The policy is focused on the needs of the transchild and their preferences. As a Leader I have a duty to all children in my care and must balance each of their needs. Only in reference to changing clothes does the policy state that all children should be offered a more private place to change if desired, otherwise transchildren chose what facilities they use with no reference to their fellow guides.

1. If GG cannot guarantee truly single sex accommodation then some girls will miss out on residentials, eg girls from certain religious groups, those who have been subjected to abuse or who just don’t want to. This is against GG’s inclusive ethos

So far GG has responded with (template?) emails to say that GG has always been a single gender organisation, gender identity (as defined above) is recognised as separate from biological sex and Leaders should refer concerned parents to the higher ups.

Today’s TV show made me wonder how many people really understand the implications of the policy and have similar concerns. Leaders can't discuss other children with parents (rightIy so) but that means parents can't give informed consent to their child sharing mixed sex facilities. I'd like to gauge the feeling of parents but it's a sensitive issue and not something that I can just ask my girls’ parents. Perhaps you think I am over reacting. Perhaps you share my concerns. Either way, I’d like to know.

Finally, I should add that I’m not trying to have transgirls removed from GG. Neither do I think all men/boys are potential sex offenders. But I do owe it to the parents and children in my care to have assessed all the risks thoroughly. My point is that this policy poses a risk, which doesn't appear to be recognised by GG and Leaders aren't being advised how to manage it.

I do have to pop out for a bit now but will come back later, if anyone replies!

pp 30-32 cover gender reassignment:

2.17 The Act defines gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

2.20 The reassignment of a person’s sex may be proposed but never gone through; the person may be in the process of reassigning their sex ; or the process may have happened previously.

It's not logically possible to be both proposing to undergo / be undergoing the process of reassigning one's sex while simultaneously already sharing the protected characteristic of sex with those of the preferred sex.

2.26 The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) provides that where a person holds a gender recognition certificate they must be treated according to their acquired gender (see the GRA for details on those who are covered by that Act; see also the Data Protection Act 1998 which deals with processing sensitive personal information).

There is no mention in this section that those without a GRC must be treated according to their acquired gender, just that they have the pc of gender reassignment.

page 177

12.46 The Act permits associations of any size or character, other than political parties, to restrict their membership to persons who share a protected characteristic. The only exception is that membership can never be restricted on the basis of colour.

It is legal for GG to restrict membership to women, girls and tw with a GRC as these all share the pc of sex. Those without a GRC do not share the pc of sex with women and girls.

12.49 Associations that restrict membership to persons who share a particular protected characteristic must not discriminate in relation to any other protected characteristic.

So in the case of a transboy being managed out of GG - she shares the PC of sex with other members because no GRC. It is not lawful to discriminate against her because she also has the pc of gender reassignment.

page 185:

13.11 For the protected characteristic of sex, it is not a breach of the Act as it applies to public functions and associations to do anything that is required under another law.

Anything GG do in relation to single sex provision that is required by child protection / safeguarding legislation is lawful and not a breach of the EA.

@PencilsInSpace

That's to delineate the separate protected characteristics, as each characteristic can have it's own exceptions and exemptions within the Act.

So as an example:

• A perceived bi-sexual transgender woman (Person A) is working for a large company. The company is found to have been paying women less for doing an equivalent job to men. Person A would have been discriminated against under the protected characteristic of Sex, but not discriminated against under the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment or Sexual Orientation.

• Person A then goes to a bar after work where they are the victim of homophobic harassment. This is witnessed by the bar staff, and Person A asks for help. Both the staff and management refuse to help, allowing the people who are doing the harassing to remain in the bar. Person A has been discriminated against because of the protected characteristic of Sexual Orientation, but not the protected characteristic of Sex. They can only show that they've been discriminated against under the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment if they can show that the harassment or subsequent discrimination is also transphobic or motivated by transphobia (if this can't be proved on balance then it would only be discrimination under the protected characteristic of Sexual Orientation).

• Person A then wishes to use the Women's Facilities (Toilets) at the bar, but is prohibited from doing so by the staff as she is transgender. Person A insists on using the toilets and is barred from the establishment This is illegal, and discrimination under the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, but not discrimination under the protected characteristics of Sex or Sexual Orientation.

Yes Haru. Sex and gender reassignment are two separate protected characteristics.

This is noteworthy because the transactivists are pushing the belief that as soon as a person proposes to undergo a process ... (and thus has the PC of gender reassignment) they also acquire the PC of sex, as shared with their preferred sex.

This is something you seem to be arguing as well in this post:

• A child who has the acquired gender of a girl can join because they have the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment and therefore should be considered as having the the protected characteristic of a woman for the purposes of the interpretation of EA2010 in this regard.

• A child who has the acquired gender of a boy cannot join because they have the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment and therefore should be considered having the protected characteristic of a man for the purposes of the interpretation of EA2010 in this regard.

This is not the case.

page 197:

13.57 If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate.

13.59 Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.

So trans people should be treated according to the gender role in which they present. They should normally be treated according to their acquired gender where they are visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender. And even here, if there are 'strong reasons' an exception can be used if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

This is very different from saying they should be considered as having the same protected characteristic of sex as their preferred sex.

Para 2.26 on page 32 makes clear that those who 'must be treated according to their acquired gender' are those with a GRC.

@PencilsInSpace

As I said in my post, that was solely my interpretation of the legislation in an attempt to get it too match up with the Statutory Code, and how it matches up with other guidance issued by EHRC. I also pointed out the argument I put forward doesn't hold up logically "Except, that chain seems incomplete to me. It feels like there should be case law..."

I've noticed that you've missed 13.58:

"The intention is to ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs. Service providers need to be aware that transsexual people may need access to services relating to their birth sex which are otherwise provided only to people of that sex. For example, a transsexual man may need access to breast screening or gynaecological services. In order to protect the privacy of all users, it is recommended that the service provider should discuss with any transsexual service users the best way to enable them to have access to the service.

Example: A clothes shop has separate changing areas for male and female customers to try on garments in cubicles. The shop concludes that it would not be appropriate or necessary to exclude a transsexual woman from the female changing room as privacy and decency of all users can be assured by the provision of separate cubicles."

and 13.60:

"As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances. Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice. Also, the provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available."

Note the first line in 13.58, "The intention is to ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs". So first thing to note is the use of: ". .. is treated in a way that best meets their needs". Solely the needs of the transsexual person. Then there's the fact that the sentence starts with "The intention is to ensure. . .". As I've said elsewhere, courts will always take into account the intent of a statute when making a determination of what is and isn't illegal under the Equality Act 2010, and are required to take note of Statutory Codes. Here the intent is clearly stated, and courts will take note of that when interpreting the legislation. Now note the next part. Here the Statutory Code is saying that not only are service providers required to treat a transsexual person in a best way that meets their needs in their acquired gender, but are also required to treat them in the best way that meets their needs in their birth sex. Then there's the example. Notice how it lays out how and when an organisation should conclude that it isn't appropriate to exclude a transgender woman from a female changing room, and now extend how those underlying principles and calculations must be applied to all situations regarding the provisioning of single-sex services.

@PencilsInSpace

whoops, posted instead of previewing. Will continue in the next post.

*Ofmen

An opportunity for women to raise their voices*

I’m just going to copy this from the other threads you’ve posted on.
No thanks. Any organisation/group that doesn’t recognise sex as a separate characteristic and calls women ‘cis’ can get stuffed.

I've been talking about this for ages.

The day I'm forced to take a bloke in a skirt to one of my Brownie sleepovers, and am unable to prevent him from sharing a room with the girls, where they sleep and get dressed, or the bathroom where they shower and wash, is the day I will leave Guiding.

Yeah sorry I didn't feel it necessary to C&P the entire document.

my interpretation of the legislation in an attempt to get it too match up with the Statutory Code, and how it matches up with other guidance issued by EHRC

Which other guidance are you looking at? I can't see where you are getting that someone with the PC of GR should also be considered as having the PC of (new) sex, even without a GRC.

If a transwoman (no GRC) should be 'treated according to the gender role in which they present', and they present as completely masculine, how are they required to be treated in your interpretation?

As I've said elsewhere, courts will always take into account the intent of a statute when making a determination of what is and isn't illegal under the Equality Act 2010

I cannot imagine that the intent of the EA was the clusterfuck that is now upon us!

The intention is to ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs.

Is there a difference between 'needs' and 'wants', legally speaking?

Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user).

GG haven't done this. Nothing here justifies the way they have acted.

@PencilsInSpace

Then there's the first line of 13.60, "As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances." There's two really important terms in there that have to be taken into account, "that the exception. . .must be applied as restrictively as possible", and that "the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances". Both these terms have legal weight and meaning. As restrictively as possible means that the courts will thoroughly examine the scenario at hand to see if the exception of the the prohibition of discrimination has been as narrowly tied to that individual scenario as it's possible to be (if it hasn't then the discrimination will be ruled to be unlawful). ". . .should only occur in exceptional circumstances" means that the exception to the prohibition of discrimination, in other words, barring a transsexual person from accessing a single-sex service of their acquired gender, cannot be something that is done as standard or as an average across single-sex service providers, and cannot be used as the norm for providers of single-sex services.

Then there's the second sentence, "A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances." So here it's stating that should a service provider meet the stringent test set out through the example contained in the Equality Act 2010 legislation, allowing them to have an exception to the prohibition of discrimination, the resulting policy should still only be applied on a case-by-case basis.

And, of course, all of this has to be incorporated into everything that's contained at the beginning of Chapter 13.

So 13.1 just says there are exceptions built into the Equality Act 2010 that permits discrimination in the provision of services.

13.2 states what the basic intention of the Act is (discrimination against a person because of a protected characteristic is forbidden). This part sets out the widest scope of how the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted. So in other words, if it can't be shown that it's lawful to discriminate against somebody with a protected characteristic, and discrimination has occurred, then this will be unlawful. It also sets out that where an exception does exist, it should, in general, be interpreted restrictively. See above for how courts look at and interpret the term, "restrictely".

I'll skip 13.3 and 13.4 in this post and put those in a separate one as that's really needs it's own segment.

13.5 We already know through a ton of other posts. It is not unlawful, provided you meet the test, to discriminate against one part of a protected characteristic if doing so allows a person or organisation to, " provide a better and more appropriate service to persons who share a protected characteristic..." e.g. It's not unlawful to provide single-sex services as long as the conditions for doing so are met.

13.6 states that even though an exception may allow discrimination in regards to one protected characteristic, the application of that exception cannot be used to discriminate against any of the other protected characteristics

(and even as I've typed that I've just realised how the EHCR has reached the determination that service providers must allow transsexuals access to the services corresponding to their acquired gender if that particular person wishes it, except in exceptional circumstances. Damn, that's obvious in hindsight).

So I need a break, and then I'll try and cover 13.3 and 13.4.

@PencilsInSpace

"Is there a difference between 'needs' and 'wants', legally speaking?"

As a quick insert, although I haven't checked for certain, if that were to be tested in court, the test would be subjective, so it would be determined by what the individual person believes they need at that time. They would be some limits placed on how reasonable that would be, but the limits would be very broad.

@PencilsInSpace

So, beds are made, dinner's prepped.

13.3 & 13.4:

These set when exceptions to being forbidden to discriminate against somebody are allowed by law. Now, this isn't specifically about being able to exclude transgender people from single-sex services, but rather covers all services and all types of discrimination. So a service is allowed to discriminate against a part of a particular protected characteristic when the service can show it is "‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’" (13.3) and must fulfil both conditions for that discrimination to be lawful (13.4).

e.g. A service can set itself up to only help people with disabilities provided that it meets the test set by the act.

So what is this test? Details are laid out 5.25 to 5.36, which is a fairly hefty piece of text (worth reading but too long to put in here), but the rough outline of which is that:

• Any service provider that seeks to discriminate against a person or group of people must justify that decision should it be challenged in court. It isn't enough to just say that you've met the test of it being a legitimate aim, and a proportionate means.

• Generalisations cannot be used to provide justification to discriminate.

• Increased cost, by itself, cannot be used as justification by a service provider to discriminate against any protected characteristic.

So now to the hefty legal bit.

• What is meant by 'legitimate aim'? 5.28 - 5.30 defines the concept of legitimate aim, and 5.30 especially is worth reading as it gives examples of what is considered to be a legitimate aim.

• What is meant by 'proportionate'? 5.31 - 5.35 sets this out, and again is worth a read, but I'll highlight 5.35 because it directly bears on the upcoming bit. 5.35 says that, "The more serious the disadvantage caused by the discriminatory provision, criterion or practice, the more convincing the objective justification must be."

• What mechanism is used to test that the justification offered does meet the criteria laid out in the Act allowing an exception to the requirement that the service provider is forbidden to discriminate against somebody who has a protected characteristic? The test used is known as the ‘objective justification’ test and a with most legal things, the two words have specific legal meanings. The justification part we've partially covered above, which leaves the word, 'objective'.

Subjective Tests and Objective Tests

From a legal point of view subjective tests are tests that look at the arguments from the viewpoint or viewpoints of the people involved. For instance, in cases where an allegation of assault has been made part of what goes towards determining whether the accused is guilty or not is if the person who was allegedly assaulted honestly felt or believed that the accused was about to attack them using unlawful violence. Here, with this part of the test, the only point of view that matters is the point of view of the person who was allegedly assaulted. Of course, it would be up to the Magistrate to determine if that belief was reasonable in the circumstances, but nonetheless, the test is still subjective. It is subject to the viewpoint of the individual involved.

Determining if something is subjective, rather than objective, can be done by asking if whatever is being examined is being judged by a personal viewpoint or opinion. So for instance, a piece of steak is cooked until it's pink in the middle but not bloody. For a person who has ordered their steak medium-rare, this steak is overcooked. For a person who has ordered their steak medium-well, this steak is undercooked. From a subjective point of view, the steak has been undercooked or overcooked based solely on the expectations and perception of the person being served.

So that then leaves what is legally meant by 'objective'. To continue the example above, when viewed from an objective point of view. The steak has been cooked and looks a certain way once it has been cooked. Whoever is judging whether the steak is overcooked or undercooked will look at the steak and compare it to a chart that states what a steak will look like when cooked to a certain point (rare, well-done, etc). Having made the comparison the person doing the judging comes to the conclusion that the steak has been cooked to the point that it can be described as 'medium'. The person doing the judging then looks at the order slip for the person who ordered the steak and sees that it was noted that the customer wanted the steak 'medium-rare'. The judge then checks the chart again and sees that 'medium' means that a steak has been cooked longer than a steak that's been cooked until it's 'medium-rare'. Therefore the steak is overcooked. And the same process would apply if the order slip stated that the customer ordered a 'medium well' steak, with the result that the judge would come to the conclusion that the steak was undercooked.

In the steak example the result, the judgement that is made, is the same regardless of which method is used, but the process to arrive at that judgement is utterly different in each case. In a subjective test only the viewpoint of the customer matters. In an objective test that viewpoint isn't considered. Instead all the factors involved are taken into account and then measured against a metric.

The same approach is true when courts examine something to determine if it's objectively justifiable. The court will examine everything relevant put forward in the arguments presented by both the claimant and defendant, weigh everything against each other when appropriate, and then make a judgement as to if something is objectively justifiable if it passes the metric set for that test.

So what's the metric used in these Equality Act 2010 cases? In most cases the metric is determined, in part, by previously existing case law. For instance, in disability discrimination cases and the requirements for employers to make reasonable adjustments to the workplace there is a sizeable body of law that can be used as a guide. Similar cases are looked at and reasonable adjustment is made based on the seriousness of the disadvantage caused by the discrimination.

Which leads to the problem of when it is objectively justifiable to discriminate against a transsexual person who is seeking access to a single-sex service. There is a paucity of case law that can looked at to provide a metric that this can be based against. However, the exemption that allows for a transsexual person to be discriminated against when seeking access to a single-sex service is found in Equality Act 2010 Schedule 3, Part 7, s28., and the explanatory notes included as part of the legislation (a way of legislators saying, "This is what we intended when wrote and voted on this part of the Bill") contains within it an example of when it is objectively justifiable to discriminate against a transsexual person who is seeking access to a single-sex service.

Now, this is the part I could be completely wrong about, but I think that the example given might be the metric being used by EHCR to determine when it's objectively justifiable to discriminate against a transsexual person seeking to access a single-sex service, and if it is, not only does that explain part of the EHCR Statutory Code, it also means that the metric for being able to objectively justify a Sch.3, Part 7, s28 exemption is set fairly high.

@PencilsInSpace

"If a transwoman (no GRC) should be 'treated according to the gender role in which they present', and they present as completely masculine, how are they required to be treated in your interpretation?"

In all likelyhood, given the wording in the legislation, and the direction of travel indicated in the Stat. Code, priority would be given to "ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs" but if the person in question hasn't stated what their needs are, either through presentation or language, then the service provider wouldn't be guilty of discrimination because it wouldn't be reasonable for them to make the accommodation to meet those needs if they have no way of knowing about it. Of course, once they are made aware of it...

There was absolutely no way I was ever going to successfully skin read all that. I'm going to have to return to it another time.

HaruNoSakura

I'd like to ask whether it would ever be possible for laws to explicitly define sex and gender, male and female?

(not that I think there could ever be a definition of gender that isn't embarrassing in it's tautological nature)

It is mindboggling that a legal situation exists that allows anybody to force their way legally into a category to which they objectively do not and can not ever belong.

I can only assume this situation came about because the difference between male and female is so self-evident that no-one thought it necessary to define it explicitly. Leaving it wide open to the abuse we now observe.

@HairyLittlePoet

"I'd like to ask whether it would ever be possible for laws to explicitly define sex and gender, male and female?"

More a question for the politicians really. From a practical, legal point of view all the following problems would need to be overcome before it would be possible:

• ensuring that the definitions could be successfully used with every previous piece of legislation passed by Parliament, and would merge seamlessly with them

• ensuring that the current integrity of existing case law is maintained

• ensuring that the definitions maintain compliance is kept with ECHR rulings

• and the difficulties ensuring that the new definitions wouldn't invalidate huge swathes of data currently being held or,

• ensuring that organisations or individuals don't use the new definitions to get around previously existing legislation

Even then it should be noted there's absolutely nothing stopping the following Parliament from repealing the legislation. I mean, if an incoming Government was ideologically committed to repealing the legislation and had the majority to do so there is no mechanism that could stop them.

The idea that the state will withdraw from any control over registration of sex with the outcome being a need for any party wanting to exclude any person form anything because of their sex having to rely on the courts to decide.

This looks to me like it is the nonsense thinking behind self ID. This 2010 act has backed everyone into a corner.

The idea that organisations with little money need to protect themselves and service users from predatory or risky behaviours via a legal system on a case by case basis is a capitulation to a rapacious movement. This is so biased in favour of a minority and goes way beyond any reasonable definition of equality. The polices being implemented by organisations appear driven by legal risk avoidance, not protection or even fairness. The numbers of trans children are tiny and yet long held sex segregations have to be scrapped to avoid legal challenge to benefit this few, to the detriment of many. Even having to try to prove what the detriment is, is a massive imposition. And just gets cries of bigotry thrown at it in response.

Haru -
Now, this is the part I could be completely wrong about, but I think that the example given might be the metric being used by EHCR to determine when it's objectively justifiable to discriminate against a transsexual person seeking to access a single-sex service, and if it is, not only does that explain part of the EHCR Statutory Code, it also means that the metric for being able to objectively justify a Sch.3, Part 7, s28 exemption is set fairly high.

Can you unpack this a bit please?

Which bit of the EHRC code does it explain and how?

In what way is the metric here set fairly high? Is it because either the women or the tw would be unable to attend, or is it more to do with the nature of the justification?

The example in the legislation is a counselling group for women who have been sexually assaulted. The example on this thread is a single sex org with a strong mission to give 'all girls across the UK to have the space and opportunities they need to thrive, grow and give back to their communities', and central to this is GG commitment to being single sex (until very recently when we were told 'we have always been at war with eurasia a single gender organisation').

What criteria could be used to compare these examples? Are the criteria objective or subjective?

Of course none of this is even touching yet on the way GG are organising residential trips, safeguarding and consent.

Which leads to the problem of when it is objectively justifiable to discriminate against a transsexual person who is seeking access to a single-sex service. There is a paucity of case law that can looked at to provide a metric that this can be based against.

This can change A few strategic cases could bring the whole of this bullshit crashing to the ground.

Sorry for all the questions, you seem very knowledgeable so I'm picking your brains. Please do say if you've had enough.

In all likelyhood, given the wording in the legislation, and the direction of travel indicated in the Stat. Code, priority would be given to "ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs"

That's interesting. So, in the case of a masculine presenting tw it's OK to ignore bits of the statutory code such as the bit that says service providers should 'treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present' and 'where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender'? And it's OK to instead read into the code things which aren't there such as that a trans person's stated belief about themself is what counts?

Given that there is no case law around this, what are you using to inform your interpretation?

*@GirlScout72 * Wait a sec! Is Eton really not accepting transmen? Do you have a link please?

I've heard that many of the men's clubs are denying them as well, and somehow this is all perfectly acceptable. WHY WHY WHY??

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/garrick-club-votes-to-continue-with-ban-on-women-members

Yet all female spaces are being taken over by all and sundry, and women are nasty and exclusive if they dare speak up

Does anyone know legally how the men's groups are able to get away with this ( and using banter and camaraderie as their excuse, yet safety for women is not an acceptable reason for separate spaces )?

I explained upthread. Same way we can. Exemptions.

There’s absolutely no case law so everyone is reliant on the guidelines - which although they hold sway- are not the law.

This has to be challenged if possible because if we don’t then we sleep walk into a situation where there are no sex based rights.

If we lose in the courts then we know where we stand. But even losing may be useful because it will create precedent that gives nuance and an opportunity for the next challenge. And losing let’s us know where to focus our efforts in lobbying to get the law changed.

I think we need to take the long view and in the meantime hope to succeed in the first foray

@GirlScout72 Are we needlessly worrying then? I don't seem to see this working in practice, what am I missing? I am asking sincerely, I would love not to worry about all of this.