OOps NC fail :(
Bowl and Ofew
I posted this about Hampsted Ponds but no one repsinded! Am I way off the mark!!?
Would there be an argument here that the gym has not just failed to provide, but removed a single sex facility that existed. What risk assessment/ justification/ rationale was used for this?
But we should argue that this is a policy that discriminates against women. The 'legit' aim is to be trans inclusive (or not trans exclusive) and to provide facilitities to trans people and increasing their participation etc, but that the means (removing single sex exemption by the allwoing of selfID) of achieving this aim discriminates aganst women and is not a proportionate means of achieving a legit aim.
It discriminates against women because it fails to offer women environments that increase women's use of ponds/ gyms which is necessary to overcome historical off putting factors (insert clever words here). The provision of single sex is allowed and even required under the EA and espcially the EA Public Duty in order that marginalised groups are no longer under-represented and to combat historical factors etc.
But organisations are required to 'balance' the needs in cases where needs compete or conflict.
By removing single sex provision entirely with slefID rather than simply providing an additional mixed sex area and more individual cubicles, to achieve trans inclusion, the policy is disproportionate ie it does more than is necessary to achive the aim (of inclusion) and the effect is to discriminate against women (including women with certain religious beliefs or certain MH disabilities eg PTSD which are themselves protected characteristics) when it entirely removes any means of increasing women's participation (which is necessary to fulfill the Public Duty under the EA) and actively prevents some women from taking part.
Legally, it is not enough that an aim is legitmate and so permissable for it to be fulfilled by any means, rather the justifiction for discrimination must be rationally assessed and thought given to any other means by which the aim could be achieved without causing unnecessary dsicrimination. This is the balancing.
As I understand it if taken to court, the burden would be on the council (or maybe gym) to prove that the means it chose are proportionate and that the unfavourable treatment of women could be objectively justitifed.
I cannot see how any council or gym could argue that succesfully when the Self ID policy would cetainly exclude some women, and provision of mixed sex and indivual cubilces is a perfectly reasonable and achieveable alternative (unless you bring feelings of vaildation into it (but these are not protect characteristics)
Am I anywhere near right?
Obviously GRC issues come into it which seems to be of some complicatio.