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

government guidance attached.

The 'gender reassignment' protected characteristic has always been more or less self-id.

You don't need surgery or a GRC to be covered by 'gender reassignment'

A grc has never been required to be covered by 'Gender Reassigment', the bar for a GRC is actually much higher than it is to be covered by gender-reassignment, and has been that way since 2010.

Thanks Old Crone. Also section 13.60 is of relevance as well

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."

There is a difference in law between someone with and without a GRC. In paragraph 13.59 that I quoted above, someone who claims to be female, must appear to be female in order to be treated as such. With a GRC, the guidance says:

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

So a man, looking conventially male, but claiming to be female, can be excluded from a female-only space. If the GRA moves to self-id, such a man can get a GRC and new birth certificate with "female" on it, and then it will be much harder to exclude him from female-only spaces.

Is there anyone here who thinks this is a good idea, and that predatory men will not take advantage of such a law?

"There is a difference in law between someone with and without a GRC. In paragraph 13.59 that I quoted above, someone who claims to be female, must appear to be female in order to be treated as such."

Nope.

Complete misreading of the guidance right there.

1. 13.57 can't be ignored on a whim : "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." - In other words, unless you can meet the requirements set out in section 28 of Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010, you can't exclude trans people from separate or single sex services of their acquired gender. GRC, no GRC, doesn't make a difference.

2. "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." - Absolutely nothing to do with a GRC. This is recognition that if a court or tribunal determines that a trans person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a not-trans person of the same gender and the exemption threshold of section 28 Schedule 3 Equality Act 2010 is not invoked or objectively met then the court or tribunal will find that discrimination can only have occurred as a result of the person having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. GRC, or no GRC, makes no difference.

As with 13.57, 13.60 can't be ignored either.

Cherry picking 13.59 and ignoring 13.57 and 13.60, and, of course, ignoring what the actual statutory legislation states (which will always take precedence), is a one-way ticket to losing discrimination cases.

MeetTheNewAccount

In my post at 10:13 I was making the point that 13.57 and 13.59 appear to contradict each other. Now that you point it out, 13.60 also seems to contradict 13.59.

I am not a lawyer, though so thankfully I will never be in the position of having to lose a discrimination case.

I think I have offered all the useful comments I can on this thread, by signposting the OP to the legislation, so I am not going to discuss this further. I hope someone with some real legal knowledge will be along to clear this up for us, although I seem to remember a similar thread a few months ago, and there seemed to be 2 or 3 people with legal expertise (or claimed to have legal expertise) who couldn't agree on what the law actually meant.

Condition about The Equality Act is where a lot of the GC feminist arguments come unstuck.

There are no plans or proposals to change the EA which allows organisations to provide single sex services and provisions. A trans woman is generally able to access these provisions either before or after obtaining a GRC.

There are exemptions which protect women in certain sensitive situations (such as rape crisis centres) where trans women do not have the same rights of access as all women.

Proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act is just an administration change to the legal process - in practice it is going to give trans people no more rights to single sex spaces than they currently have.

At the moment the GRC process requires trans people to live in their acquired gender for two years which means using single sex services before they have obtained their GRC. Hence the actual certificate making little difference.

What has worked well in the past and will continue to work well is for single sex providers to assess each situation on a case by case basis.

*Condition should say confusion

What is clear from the guidance is that a policy of "we won't allow any trans women to use this service" is very, very likely to be found unlawful.

Which leads to the point that the only way of removing the rights from trans people that GC feminists want removed is by repealing the GRA which is never going to happen.

Where has anyone said they want to remove rights?

James Kirkup (Spectator) recent unrolled tweet:

"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

The government proposes to amend the law to allow people to self-identify as men or women, and to stop allowing organisations in sensitive situations to exclude people of the opposite birth sex.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

New Action to Promote LGBT Equality
The Government announces new proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender and launches a nationwide LGBT survey
www.gov.uk/government/news/new-action-to-promote-lgbt-equality

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stw-vision-for-change-2017.pdf

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

Petition: Consult with women on proposals to enshrine 'gender identity' in law
The government proposes to amend the law to allow people to self-identify as men or women, and to stop allowing organisations in sensitive situations to exclude people of the opposite birth sex. We c…
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html?refreshed=yes
**link shows relevent documents

Where has anyone said they want to remove rights?

I thought GC feminists weren't happy with trans women using female facilities?

If trans women are welcome in female spaces then there is no problem!

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out.

So single sex exemptions do apply under the EA.

single sex exemptions exist insofar as men/women and for the purpose of the equality act, trans people are considered that of their gender identity.

Only those 4000 or so with GRC and they can be also be excluded under the EA.

I thought GC feminists weren't happy with trans women using female facilities?

I didn’t realize that using a facilities designed for the opposite sex was a right.

I didn’t realize that using a facilities designed for the opposite sex was a right

The Gender Recognition Act legally recognises a trans person as their acquired gender. So trans women have as much right to use female facilities as any other woman.

Surprised after all the discussion on here you don't realise this Jelly.

there is a long thread here by Fairplay for Women worth reading:

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1015587792779468800

also lots of information & resources on their website.

Fairplay for women, have a very ......... 'unique' interpretation of a lot of things, this is no different.

Read that entire fair play Twitter thread twice and still not sure what point they are trying to make or what they are arguing for? Or is it just sounding off?

I was hoping to link to more info on the website but it seems to be having problems.

Fairplay for Women will, I'm sure be publishing much more in the coming days / weeks.

As James Kirkup wrote: 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate'

"For all that some people suggest it’s somehow prurient or distasteful to talk about penises in this debate, there is, as Nick Robinson put it in some excellent interviews on the Today Programme yesterday, no way to avoid this. The simple fact is that people with penises, whatever word we use to describe those people, are biologically different to people without penises, and that difference matters to many women in a way that cannot be dismissed as bigotry. It is, again, a simple fact that people with penises have the potential to commit certain acts of violence and abuse against others. That fact is the reason Parliament and society accept the concept of single-sex spaces: women have a right to keep someone with a penis out of those spaces.

Upholding that legal right is possibly the founding principle of several women’s groups that have sprung up since the Government first announced its intent to make it easier for people to change their legal gender. Unlike the charities that lobby for transgender rights, the women’s groups — Woman’s Place UK, Fair Play for Women and ManFriday — have no corporate or public sector funding, and not much money at all. They are genuine grassroots political organisations that have sprung up from a concerned public. Those groups have made a difference. Back in the autumn, that point about female-only spaces was either often ignored or dismissed in political debate. Women talking about penises were ridiculed as bigoted cranks, accused of transphobic misinformation. Their meetings were subjected to violent protests (one person has been convicted of assault) and a bomb threat, threats that went shamefully unremarked on by most politicians. Nevertheless, the women persisted: the meetings continued; the campaigns went on; and it made a difference.

Yesterday on the Today programme, Penny Mordaunt, equalities Minister, didn’t dismiss those women as cranks. She said this:

“Those women who are raising those concerns, those are legitimate concerns that we need to address…We will listen to everyone’s voice in this consultation.”

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

Perhaps you need to read it again. I thought it was easy to understand and it cleared up a lot of points for me.

Thanks R0wantrees

The Gender Recognition Act legally recognises a trans person as their acquired gender. So trans women have as much right to use female facilities as any other woman.

Oh, you’re only referring to trans women with a GRC not trans women in general. I thought we were talking about the EA and gender reassignment.