Government Announcement

[crunchymint]

The Government has announced that it has “no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single-sex spaces”.

Snappity
Can you hear yourself. A group of people whose identity is based solely on their feelings are to be given the right to completely ride roughshod over the feelings of another group. If feelings are enough to get you into a single sex space why are feelings not good enough to set boundaries. Why is only one group to be medicalised.

We are talking about changing the law. Counsel’s opinion is based on current law is it not? If the law changes then her opinion would change

What they’re saying at the moment is no, it won’t, that it is covered by the EA so no change is needed.

Interesting that the legal requirement that employers provide lockable sex segregated loos is one of the few laws that the EA did not repeal. The laws seem to contradict what people say they say.

Where did you get one? You don’t even have to have two toilets unless you have more employees, let alone male and female.

Leah - when I said "it's easy to say", I literally meant "it's easy to say". As in, it might seem like a statement of simple fact, but when a body is looking to use a legal exemption that's not enough (and nor should it be, IMHO)

If any organisation wants to exclude a group with a protected characteristic, I don't have a problem with requiring them to demonstrate that they have thought about the impact of that decision, whether it's a DV shelter wanting to restrict access to women only, or a youth group in inner London wanting to target black men under 25 or a disability support group wanting to limit facilities to people with Down's Syndrome. In most cases it isn't an onerous task. If an organisation isn't able to make a convincing case, then either they don't actually have a case to exclude people or they have employed the wrong people to think about their policies and practices

then who decides who gets in?

Humans are really very good telling which sex you are. And yes, it would be biological sex class.

Issue is, some women only group is going to have to go to court and literally be bogged down in a legal process because we know that men won't take 'no' for an answer. Look what happened to my local rape crisis center Van Rape Relief. Twelve years and thousands upon thousands of dollars. They won though!

In most cases it isn't an onerous task. If an organisation isn't able to make a convincing case, then either they don't actually have a case to exclude people or they have employed the wrong people to think about their policies and practices

I beg to differ since what we have now is a bunch of men, autogynephilic men, who are a walking/talking Duluth model and they never take NO for an answer.

The woman only service that attempts to say no is more than likely going to have fight for it. The arguments have already been made here in Vancouver. All the women's org needs to do is follow Van Rape Relief's arguments. They were air tight arguments.

This is why I've made videos in the past on Van Rape Relief's arguments. There is no way a man could win access if those same arguments were used in ANY court, unless the judges are biased.

I'm not underestimating the difficulty in fighting a protracted legal battle, mancheeze, in terms of financial cost, the distraction from core service delivery and huge emotional drain. In some ways a landmark case in the UK, similar to the Van Rape Relief case, might be helpful to flush the issues out in the open and demonstrate to organisations that it is OK to be single sex (when it can be justified), but I wouldn't wish that burden upon any of the wonderful women's charities out there, many of whom are already running on a shoe string budget

Snappity
Can you hear yourself. A group of people whose identity is based solely on their feelings are to be given the right to completely ride roughshod over the feelings of another group. If feelings are enough to get you into a single sex space why are feelings not good enough to set boundaries. Why is only one group to be medicalised.

So let me get this straight @Snappity*, under self-id, males will be trusted to self-id as trans, but you suggest a third space for women who will have to prove that they have a mental disorder to escape from intact male-bodied trans women? And if we don't want to tell our GPs our rape history, we just have to suck it up or stay at home? And what do we do whilst waiting for a referral to a psychologist, because that's what you need to get a PTSD diagnosis? The waiting list last time for me was six months.

This is misogyny writ large. This is what male privilege looks like: males being believed whilst women are presumed to be liars until they prove themselves truthful.*

YY to both of these comments. The hypocrisy is staggering and malignant.

Can any of the legally minded on here answer this one:

Would an organisation that had previously provided single sex spaces but had changed to unisex be legally liable in any way if a service user was harmed as a result?
For example if a woman is changing in a unisex space and is attacked, leading to economic loss etc?

Could women sue service providers who have actively endangered them with this practice?

I am not legally minded, but the only thing I can compare it to is when I had an accident when being driven in a taxi. Apart from the usual compensation, I was awarded an amount of money as the taxi company had a 'duty of care'. I guess if you are in a shop changing room and are attacked, you could try to prove the shop didn't uphold it's duty of care.

All the rigmarole around Health and Safety and signs for wet floors and even bloody steps, yet they allow men in the women's changing area if they identify as women. I would rather trip over a step than be attacked in a curtained off area. Not badly trip, you understand, I don't want to break any bones!

Could women sue service providers who have actively endangered them with this practice?

It would be difficult. I think the only circumstances where it might be possible would be in public sector services where the service provider was aware the person was trans. They’d also have to prove that being trans was a factor in the attack otherwise it would be treated legally like any other attack. If a Granny got attacked by a 6ft 200lb transwoman in her hospital bed or a 5ft 7st prisoner in her prison cell it might well be possible.

But in terms of private sector things like changing rooms or toilets it would be almost impossible as they cannot check or police the sex of people using their facilities.

I actually don’t mean being attacked by a transperson - I mean attacked by a man who has used the unisex facilities which were previously single sex.

So for example let’s say my gym has single sex change rooms now. That is for my safety and the safety of the women around me. Staff or other gym users can challenge a man going into those changing rooms and again that’s another layer of safeguarding. I feel confident that the gym is doing all they can to keep me safe on their premises. They have fulfilled their duty of care there - just like they have one to provide safe gym kit and put a ‘wet floor’ sign down as needed.

So now the changing rooms have changed to unisex. A man (not a transperson, just a man) comes in, staff see them go in but don’t challenge and attacks a woman in that space.

Could that woman argue that by making the space unisex and by removing right of challenge, the gym has not fulfilled its duty of care to her. ? She’s been forced to change in what is effectively an unsafe space?

I’m keen to keep transpeople out of the scenario- I want people to think about the unintended consequence of men accessing areas, not imply that transpeople are a danger per se.

I know that organisations have liability insurance. I assume that part of that process is a risk assessment based on what that organisation does and the likelihood of them being sued.

So how does this affect that?