Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Man Friday campaign is likely to harm cisgendered women

340 replies

SarahAr · 22/03/2018 18:44

Although I applaud the audacity and bravery of the women who decided to identify as men and use the mens' changing room at the Dulwich Leisure Centre, sadly their campaign is misguided and is likely to lead to harm to cisgendered women.

The only law in England and Wales that gives someone who was born male the right to use female spaces, such as changing rooms, is the Equality Act. On the face of it the act only applies to those who propose to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process to reassigned their gender. To understand how it is interpreted though you need to look at the case law. The leading case is Croft v Royal Mail and although it applied to an earlier statute in a slightly different context, it is still good law. This case held that a transwomen would only acquire the right to use the women's toilet at work when she was significantly advanced in her transition.

So the law today does not allow men (or women) to self-id their way into the opposite gender's changing room. And the government has stated that it is not going to change the Equality Act so the law in this area will not change. And as far as I know, no pervert has succeeded in using the Equality Act to access a changing room in the 7 years that the Equality Act 2010 has been law.

The government has announced however that it is considering simplifying the process of changing legal gender under the Gender Recognition Act. However, and this is the crucial point, if a man changes his legal gender to female it does not give him access to female spaces.

There is a myth that with self-identification a man would be allowed to say that he is a women - say on Friday afternoons. However, nothing could be further from the truth. If the process in Ireland is followed a legal instrument - a statutory declaration - has to be filled out in front of a solicitor or other suitably qualified person. And the wording has to say he has a "settled and solemn intention to live in the preferred gender of female for the rest of [his] life". And lying on a statutory declaration in the UK is a criminal offence - punishable with up to 2 years in prison under the Perjury Act.

If a man were to change to his legal gender to female and sneak his way into the women's changing room it would still not prevent him from committing the offences of Voyeurism and Exposure. Both of these offences are drafted in gender neutral terms.

Not only is the Man Friday campaign unnecessary, it is positively harmful. The constant stream of articles in the media saying that men can identify as women on a Friday and use the women's changing rooms have two effects. Firstly, people who work in leisure centres believe this to be the law and stop challenging creepy guys trying to access the women's changing room. Secondly, it gives perverts the idea that they have the legal right to perform perverted acts. (they don't and these acts remain criminal offences)

And this is not just a theoretical analysis - this actually happened in Seattle, Washington. After a prolonged Republican media campaign stating that a new law allowed perverts to access the women's changing room, a man took them at their word and, claiming rights under the new law, decided to change with the women. And the sad thing is that the staff confused by the media coverage did nothing to stop him. But the kicker is that the new law did not allow a man to self-id his way into the women's changing room. And this is not my legal analysis - this is the legal analysis of the Washington State Human Rights Commission.

So in summary women's spaces are not threatened by either the current law or the government's proposed changes. However, if the Man Friday campaign plants the idea into people's minds that men can self-id their way into women's changing rooms, then expect to see perverts take them up on the idea.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
DietCoke87 · 22/03/2018 21:28

So in summary women's spaces are not threatened by either the current law or the government's proposed changes.

I only speak for myself, but when self ID comes into place, I know I'm going to think twice about confronting or questioning any person's sex in a segregated area for fear of a hate incident investigation. It's good to know that the punishments for offenders still stand OP, but I'm more interested in reducing the number of victims. Females calling out potential offenders without fear of arrest for hate speech help to prevent a lot of crimes (not that it should be our responsibility).

SimonBridges · 22/03/2018 21:32

Its not only women’s spaces that are under threat it’s the entire meaning of woman.
We are not just second rate men.

WiggyPig · 22/03/2018 21:33

Although I applaud the audacity and bravery of the women who decided to identify as men and use the mens' changing room at the Dulwich Leisure Centre, sadly their campaign is misguided and is likely to lead to harm to cisgendered women.

Hm. Something tells me you don't applaud it.

The only law in England and Wales that gives someone who was born male the right to use female spaces, such as changing rooms, is the Equality Act.

This is just claptrap. There is no "right to use female spaces." There is a provision that service providers can restrict access to their services, including by sex. Even if you are generous enough to accept that the "right to use female spaces" is just an internet shorthand rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, the relevant Act is the Gender Recognition Act 2004, specifically s.9(1). The Equality Act prevents victimisation, harassment or discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived gender reassignment, while the GRA affirms gender (or sex) as the acquired gender (or sex).

On the face of it the act only applies to those who propose to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process to reassigned their gender.

What. In the actual TEXT of it the Act applies to those who are perceived as those things as well as those who are actually engaged in gender reassignment - so if a masculine presenting woman or a long haired man is discriminated against because someone thinks they are transitioning it is not necessary that they are in fact transitioning for the Act to protect them.

To understand how it is interpreted though you need to look at the case law. The leading case is Croft v Royal Mail and although it applied to an earlier statute in a slightly different context, it is still good law. This case held that a transwomen would only acquire the right to use the women's toilet at work when she was significantly advanced in her transition.

Croft v Royal Mail predates both the GRA and the EA, you massive numpty.

So the law today does not allow men (or women) to self-id their way into the opposite gender's changing room. And the government has stated that it is not going to change the Equality Act so the law in this area will not change.

It may do. The statutory guidance to the EA says that those who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which includes anyone who says they are planning to) should be treated as their preferred gender where possible. There are sex exemptions but they are not widely understood or used.

And this is exactly what the Man Friday campaign is demonstrating: that whatever the EA may say, the way it is applied in practice is that nobody feels able to challenge self-ID even when the person doing it is plainly of the opposite sex to the one they claim.

And as far as I know, no pervert has succeeded in using the Equality Act to access a changing room in the 7 years that the Equality Act 2010 has been law.

Maybe not a changing room, but there have been several instances of it happening in prisons, arguably more serious given the vulnerabilities of women in prison.

The government has announced however that it is considering simplifying the process of changing legal gender under the Gender Recognition Act. However, and this is the crucial point, if a man changes his legal gender to female it does not give him access to female spaces.

However, and this is the crucial point..... yes it does. See s.9(1) GRA.

There is a myth that with self-identification a man would be allowed to say that he is a women - say on Friday afternoons. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Except that this already happens: see Pippa / Philip Bunce, who identifies as a woman part-time and on the strength of it was awarded an award for being a woman in finance. Even HE doesn't claim to be a woman full time!

If the process in Ireland is followed a legal instrument - a statutory declaration - has to be filled out in front of a solicitor or other suitably qualified person. And the wording has to say he has a "settled and solemn intention to live in the preferred gender of female for the rest of [his] life". And lying on a statutory declaration in the UK is a criminal offence - punishable with up to 2 years in prison under the Perjury Act.

The same process as a stat dec for a change of name or to say that no honest you never received that speeding fine. You're not filling me with confidence here.

If a man were to change to his legal gender to female and sneak his way into the women's changing room it would still not prevent him from committing the offences of Voyeurism and Exposure. Both of these offences are drafted in gender neutral terms.

But not committed in gender neutral terms, I'm sure you'd agree.

Not only is the Man Friday campaign unnecessary, it is positively harmful. The constant stream of articles in the media saying that men can identify as women on a Friday and use the women's changing rooms have two effects. Firstly, people who work in leisure centres believe this to be the law and stop challenging creepy guys trying to access the women's changing room. Secondly, it gives perverts the idea that they have the legal right to perform perverted acts. (they don't and these acts remain criminal offences)

People in leisure centres already believe this to be the law. And seriously don't even pretend that sex pests take one look at Amy's pink swimming cap and forget that sexual assault is a crime. That's one of the most disingenuous arguments I think I've ever heard.

And this is not just a theoretical analysis - this actually happened in Seattle, Washington.

Which has what exactly to do with the law in England & Wales?

After a prolonged Republican media campaign stating that a new law allowed perverts to access the women's changing room, a man took them at their word and, claiming rights under the new law, decided to change with the women. And the sad thing is that the staff confused by the media coverage did nothing to stop him. But the kicker is that the new law did not allow a man to self-id his way into the women's changing room. And this is not my legal analysis - this is the legal analysis of the Washington State Human Rights Commission.

I'm not sure that what a new law the other side of the world did or didn't allow for will make any difference to the new law proposed right here.

So in summary women's spaces are not threatened by either the current law or the government's proposed changes. However, if the Man Friday campaign plants the idea into people's minds that men can self-id their way into women's changing rooms, then expect to see perverts take them up on the idea.

That is one of the worst legal summaries I've seen in a while. If someone shines a light on a lacuna in the law, it is not the torch-holder's sole responsibility to repair it.

Pratchet · 22/03/2018 21:33

Cis is hate speech, you are a transactivist

thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth · 22/03/2018 21:41

Wiggypig,

“I'll come back to this later with some actual law just in case anybody's still reading”

Well I wish someone fucking would.

CharlieSierra · 22/03/2018 21:42

To understand how it is interpreted though you need to look at the case law. The leading case is Croft v Royal Mail and although it applied to an earlier statute in a slightly different context, it is still good law. This case held that a transwomen would only acquire the right to use the women's toilet at work when she was significantly advanced in her transition

There's a TIM using the women's loos where I work. It's a man with pink hair and a pink lunch bag. He stands up and pisses like a racehorse. We're told in HR that it's best practice to allow him to use the loos aligned to his gender identity. No argument.

thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth · 22/03/2018 21:42

Ooh, cross-post with Wiggy.

CapnHaddock · 22/03/2018 21:47

Massive numpty is right. He reminds me of all those totally shit blokes who go into the first round of Masterchef going 'I'm really creative and I'm pretty sure I can go all the way', only to crash and burn in the first round because they are completely shit.

Good grief.

AngryAttackKittens · 22/03/2018 21:47

Wow, this is awkward. Reminds me of that old skit with the middle aged bloke sidling up to a bunch of university students all "hi, kids, I too am a hip and cool kid, may I join your drinking occasion?"

CadyHeron · 22/03/2018 21:49

& even if people humour you to your face, they'll still be thinking "bloke in a dress". You'll look like what you are - which is, not a woman

See, I'd just like to say, from my point of view, I have no problem whatsoever with fully transitioned men to women. If you've gone through all the surgery, etc, fair enough.No problem.
Having a big problem with Self ID choose what you want to be on the day and still retain all tackle and make no steps to become female but still say you are and demand the law says you are though.

thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth · 22/03/2018 21:50

I would be so grateful if Wiggy or another solicitor or barrister could set out the law as it is and as proposed without the distraction of dealing with the OP’s confused essay (which is very patronising and keeps saying things that can’t be right)..

Like in judgments by real judges. Who just write down what the law is in the section after the introduction.

SarahAr · 22/03/2018 21:50

SusanBunch. If this was a law essay, then I think a 2.2 would be generous given I have not developed my arguments or provided references. But this is a discussion group post not a law essay.

In terms of your argument that Croft v Royal Mail no longer applies as the law has been repealed. I was careful in my post to state the case that it applied to an earlier statute and also a different context.

I also make the following points:

  1. Croft is a Court of Appeal case - the second highest court in the land. I don't know of any subsequent CA or Supreme court decisions in this area.

  2. The wording of the relevant parts of the old law, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended) and the new law, Equality Act 2010, is similar.

  3. It is standard practice to cite cases on repealed law if there are no relevant cases on the new law, the case is on point and any differences in wording in the statute is highlighted and does not affect the argument.

  4. My reading of Croft is the case did not hinge on the exact wording, but instead how long through her transition the appellant needed to be before she was protected under the SDA. That even after Sarah Croft has completed 9 months of her transition, the judges did not feel she was legally entitled to use a women's toilet. Not a changing room where people are partially or fully undressed, but a toilet with cubicles. Per LJ Pill paragraph 53

"The moment at which a person in the applicant's position is entitled to use female toilets depends on all the circumstances, including her conduct and that of the employers. The employers must take into account the stage reached in treatment, including the employee's own assessment and presentation. They are entitled to take into account, though not to be governed by, the susceptibilities by other members of the workforce"

  1. The key point I am making is even though a man who intends to go undergo gender reassignment is covered by the Equality Act, it does not mean that the courts will find that discrimination has occurred if he is barred from the ladies changing room. The idea that a man could claim he identified as a woman and therefore has the right to use the women's changing room is laughable.

  2. ellisWhitham as of May 23, 2016 consider Croft to be good law. See www.elliswhittam.com/transgender-toilet-facilities-regulations

OP posts:
Wheresmyfuckingcupcake · 22/03/2018 21:53

What a knob

Fairenuff · 22/03/2018 21:57

Maybe we need a #cisismisgendering

thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth · 22/03/2018 21:57

Sarahar, are you a law student? Absolutely nothing wrong with that but I’d be glad to know if you don’t mind saying.

IdotsInCharge · 22/03/2018 21:59

If this was a law essay, then I think a 2.2

Remind me, what is the adage about men estimating their skill level?

Juells · 22/03/2018 21:59

Who's laughing? I don't see anyone...

SarahAr · 22/03/2018 22:00

UpstartCrow - men can access the women's bathing pond on Hampstead Heath, not because the law gives them this right, but because the authorities who manage the bathing pond have decided to permit it.

My argument is that is this is not an issue with the law as it is today or with the current government proposals to change it.

OP posts:
MistressDeeCee · 22/03/2018 22:00

But (5)The idea that a man could claim he identified as a woman and therefore has the right to use the women's changing room is laughable

You don't get out much do you?

Someone missed the memo that writing loads of words does not equate to clever and/or informed.

That's like asking us to believe a penis and balls-intact bloke in a dress is a woman

JessicaJonesJacket · 22/03/2018 22:01

I'm concerned about university standards if OP is a law student. Maybe they're a professional man but an amateur lawyer.

CadyHeron · 22/03/2018 22:03

Sarahar, are you a law student? Absolutely nothing wrong with that but I’d be glad to know if you don’t mind saying

Maybe OP identifies as one.

UpstartCrow · 22/03/2018 22:03

@SarahAr Whatever your beliefs about how its illegal and unlikely and can never happen, the fact is that Labours All Women Shortlists and Women's Officer positions are now open to anyone who 'identifies' as a woman.

Can you see why that is a problem for women?

SarahAr · 22/03/2018 22:04

thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth.

I am not a law student or practicing lawyer but I am legally qualified. I also don't claim to be an expert in this area of law. I would be interested in seeing any alternative opinions of the law in this area.

OP posts:
Sensefinder · 22/03/2018 22:05

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AngryAttackKittens · 22/03/2018 22:13

It's interesting to watch the attempts to shut down dissent evolve over time, no? Most of our resident sealions seem to have either moved on or changed names, and the sealioning was already an evolution from the earlier failed "begone, vile bigots!" tactic. Now apparently they've moved on to IANAL but let me splain how the law works even though we can all see that it's not working that way at all, it's just that I'm very concerned about "cisgendered" women you see, which is not a tell, oh no, everyone writes in this weird, stilted, jargon-y way.

Swipe left for the next trending thread