Feeling dumb here... apologies, could someone clarify Equality Act???

[loveyouradvice]

I'm sorry - brain a bit foggy...I did know this but....

Am I right in thinking that Sex and Gender Reassignment are the two protected characteristics in the act?

And that if your Gender has NOT been reassigned officially (i.e. GRC) that the Equality Act does not prioritise your Gender Identity over Sex? (And if it has, there can be appropriate case by case exemptions - which are not used, probably because of fear of prosecution and accusations of transphobia?)

If so, I am very confused....

Surely the guides are acting illegally for the under 18s as NONE can have been reassigned....
And similarly with Hampstaed Ponds

This Twitter thread might help

mobile.twitter.com/lgbtld/status/1004079579747835906?s=21

Sex and gender reassignment are two of a number of protected characteristics.

Sex is what is on your birth certificate (whether from birth or more recently via a GRC).

Gender reassignment covers your intention to transition, or the perception of others that you are transitioning.

In practice a lot of "single sex" spaces are in reality "single gender" - eg the Women's Pond / Guides / Labour's AWS. This is partly because it would be extremely impractical to ask everyone for their birth certificate at places like the Pond and partly because people implementing the law often don't understand it.

From an article in the times;
A statement from the Government Equalities Office, overseen by Penny Mordaunt, the women and equalities minister, promises that “advancing the rights of trans people does not have to compromise women’s rights”.

It said: “We are clear we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single-sex spaces. Any Gender Recognition Act reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act nor the exemptions under the Equality Act that allow for single and separate-sex spaces.”

It pledges: “Providers of women-only services [can choose not to] provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis. The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single-sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.”

The Equality Act 2010: A woman’s right to single-sex spaces and services
fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

It is bloody confusing. I don't blame you.

The equality act gives gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. And basically it starts as you say it out loud. That means you can't be discriminated against on the basis of it.

The equality act does allow you to discriminate against men, tho. As long as it is a proportionate means to legitimate aim. Like all women shortlists, for instance.

Although the Labour Party are disregarding this, and acting as though anyone who applies already has a GRC.

If a man changes legal sex and gets a GRC he is protected as a woman, because he changes sex to that of a woman.

You can still discriminate, because the law recognises that you haven't literally changed sex.
A rape refuge for instance can keep men out.

As again, it is definitely recognised as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

But it's not compulsory, it's something that people can choose to do or not.

And therein lies the problem.

Services have been intimidated/brainwashed, into thinking that they don't have a choice.

As it has not made a legal challenge, so far, no one wants to stick their neck out.

That's my basic understanding.

But As the equality act and the gender recognition act conflate sex with gender, and seem to contradict themselves, it's up for interpretation.

In terms of being under 18, as far as the equality act goes, whatever is written applies to both adults and children. As far as I know.

Which is why you've got teachers being disciplined for misgendering.

I don't believe it has been legally tested as to whether misgendering equals discrimination. Or when it does, or how many times, etc.

Although there was a man who was taken to court for misgendering a TW, but the judge threw it out.

Good point. You would think that people would see it that way and that organisations wouldn't have to make up their own versions of the Equality Act.

The trouble is that public bodies and organisations are already treating gender identity as though it came under the protected characteristic of gender reassigment. (You've mentioned the Girl Guides. I would add such things as guidance by Chief Police Officers on the Treatment of Transgender detainess and the National Offender Management Service guidance on the management of transgender convicts).

The horse has well and truly bolted and I'm as baffled as you are. .

You would have thought that there was no question of a violent and dangerous thug without a GRC (but with a reputation for boasting of their 7 inch organ when operating as a sex worker) ending up in a woman's prison, but it happened. The pressure on the prison service from transactivists was unrelenting. (No one considered the needs of women prisoners - but that's another story.) The fact that the convict hadn't bothered getting a GRC wasn't an issue.

The noise from transactivists and LBGT+ lobbies convinced the government that their proposals to 'update' protected characteristics would be uncontroversial and the RIght Thing To Do. Hence the proposal to do away with 'gender reassignment' as a protected characteristic in favour of gender identity.

We need to put that horse back in the stable, as far as I'm concerned

Equality Act 2010 definition of gender reassignment: A person has the protected characteristic if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process ......... (of) changing physiological or other attributes of sex'

lol between all those explinations im sure that made it clear for the OP,

We need to put that horse back in the stable, as far as I'm concerned

In late 2009 there was a last minute push to get gender identity into the Equality Act 2010 instead of gender reassignment. Thankfully it didn't succeed. then. I am no more in favour today.

You can still discriminate, because the law recognises that you haven't literally changed sex.

Not true in so many different ways

Transgender advocate seem to have forgotten that sexual orientation is also a protected characteristic under the EA.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

Given that the advice and documents given to councils and schools as well as law enforcement by gender advocacy groups have proven to be fraudulent and a violation of the very act they claim to facilitate the implementation of it is not surprising that confusion and chaos has been sown. Perhaps that was the intent?

Transgender advocate seem to have forgotten that sexual orientation is also a protected characteristic under the EA

No, but they don't really buy into the erasure of lesbianism meme
www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/the-idea-that-trans-men-are-lesbians-in-denial-is-demeaning-and-wrong

I have asked you before not to attempt to engage me by quoting me.

This is my second request that you confine yourself to appropriate interactions with people who are willing to interact with you.
I am not one of them.

Snappity stop being a dick.

Someone got upset by a boundary - quelle surprise. Refusing to take a no and escalating against the person targeted are the MO of abusers.

This is my second request that you confine yourself to appropriate interactions with people who are willing to interact with you.

That is not how MN works. You can post what you like, within the guidelines, however dumb, transphobic, misleading, etc. But you don't get to object if someone posts a correction or their own views on an issue.

If you don't want to engage with someone, then don't respond to them.

Someone got upset by a boundary - quelle surprise. Refusing to take a no and escalating against the person targeted are the MO of abusers

Equating fair criticism of a fellow MNer's post with being abuser. I am lost for words.

Surely the guides are acting illegally for the under 18s as NONE can have been reassigned....
And similarly with Hampstaed Ponds

You are confusing having the right to discriminate against trans people with the legal requirement to discriminate against trans people. Even if Hampstead Ponds were allowed to discriminate against trans people, it does not follow they have to.

In terms of how the protected characteristics of "sex" and 'gender reassignment" interact - it is very confusing.

Basically under discrimination law, to determine if someone is being subject to discrimination the courts choose a comparator. If the trans person is treated worse than the comparator on account of being trans it is discrimination and the have a legal claim.

For an example such as Hampstead Ponds, should the comparator be a non-trans gender man or a non-trans gender woman? If a non-trans gender man and a transwomen is denied access to the women's pond then this would NOT be discrimination.

The Equality Act does not say how the comparator should be chosen. One thing that helps is the statutory guidance from EHRC which courts need to take into account. I won't quote it again - but it basically says trans women should be treated as women unless you have a good reason not to.

The other thing helps is the Court of Appeal case of Croft v Royal Mail. This was a case on the predecessor to the EA, the Sex Discrimination Act - but the law is similar. This says that the courts will choose the appropriate comparator depending on the situation. But it is clear from Croft that a legal change of gender or even full gender reassignment is not necessary for a trans women to be protected from discrimination.

Its not confusing. A women only space or service is for biological women.

If a trans person wants to access that space instead of fighting for their own. they go to court and complain that it is disproportionate to exclude them.

The women only space or service will explain they include women who cannot share with biological men, and the court has to decide if that is proportionate.
Some women who use the service will have 2 or 3 protected characteristics.

Someone got upset by a boundary - quelle surprise. Refusing to take a no and escalating against the person targeted are the MO of abusers.

Quite. And "I haven't broken the law" is the usual refrain. Merely demonstrative on a website's messageboard but also highly indicative of the (lack of) wisdom in sharing any private space out there in the real world.

Want to risk assess someone you are not sure about and who sets your spidey senses tingling? Say no to them about something trivial and see what they do. You'll have your answer.

If a trans person wants to access that space instead of fighting for their own. they go to court and complain that it is disproportionate to exclude them.

The women only space or service will explain they include women who cannot share with biological men, and the court has to decide if that is proportionate. Some women who use the service will have 2 or 3 protected characteristics

Exactly. And I think the trans lobby will be disappointed if many of these cases go to court. Courts are very good at dealing with conflicting rights. This is why there has been so much backroom political action by the trans lobby - if they threaten funding by making clueless politicos make "inclusive" policies over funding (even though inclusive effectively excludes women) then such cases will never get to court (where many will lose) in the first place.

I won't quote it again - but it basically says trans women should be treated as women unless you have a good reason not to.

You won't quote it again because that's not what it says. What you say only applies to those with a GRC.

For someone without a GRC, it says that they should be treated as their preferred sex if they are indistinguishable from someone of that sex. Even if a transwoman passes sufficiently for this to be the case while dressed, if such a person still has a penis, and this is obvious once this person is in the women's changing room, this person is no longer indistinguishable from a woman, and can be excluded.

If someone has a GRC, they should be treated as their acquired sex for all purposes, unless the proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim clause is invoked. That is, it has to be proved that there is a good reason for excluding them.

This is why the people who say changing the GRA will have no effect on women are lying.

You are confusing having the right to discriminate against trans people with the legal requirement to discriminate against trans people. Even if Hampstead Ponds were allowed to discriminate against trans people, it does not follow they have to.

Anyone making this claim is either being disingenuous, or does not understand The Equality Ac.
The Act defines a protected characteristic, and people either share that characteristic or they don't.

The Act is very clear; definitions are not not discriminatory. People who do not share a specific characteristic cannot make a claim that they are being discriminated against if they are excluded from a service or space; or if they don't have an equivalent.

For example, men cannot claim they are being discriminated against if they are barred from a breastfeeding room, and do not also have a similar room.

The Equality Act does not say how the comparator should be chosen. One thing that helps is the statutory guidance from EHRC which courts need to take into account. I won't quote it again - but it basically says trans women should be treated as women unless you have a good reason not to.

@SarahAr I didn't know that. Is there a link or somewhere I can go to see this guidance please?

Wanderabout

This is from the Equality Act 2010 Statutory Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations

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.

But it also says this

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.