Labour councillor quits in row over facilities for trans people - The Times

[ReappearingWoman]

Anne Sinnot, Labour councillor (Cambridge) has resigned.

"Ann Sinnott stood down from Cambridge council claiming that the authority was treating women with contempt and was acting in “dereliction of the law”. She said a policy that resulted in single-sex facilities, such as toilets or changing rooms, being “abolished at a stroke” was undermining women’s rights and was a breach of the equality act."

I don't have a clicky link or share token. Hopefully someone else will add?

@Bowlofbabelfish if the council has broken any laws or parts of the EQ Act 2010 then why hasn’t there been a court case?

I’m not a legal expert (and definitely don’t know legal terminology) so I can only speculate they haven’t.

If there’s a case they have then whatever mechanics that exist in a democracy need to be used to raise it to the appropriate courts so the law can be confirmed either way.

A comment saying txxf was deleted.

We should bring it up in the Equality Act review, as Listen suggests. We should use it as an example where applying the law is failing and there is no redress.

@Bowlofbabelfish if the council has broken any laws or parts of the EQ Act 2010 then why hasn’t there been a court case?

They don’t happen automatically- someone has to bring them.

They have removed sex as a protected characteristic. That is illegal.

Is sex the only one you’re ‘happy’ to see go? Why are you happy to see that? I would be very unhappy to see the council remove ANY protected characteristic.

But you’re happy to see they have removed sex as a protected characteristic.

I’d like to know why. Why does that make you happy?

Cambridge city council seem to totally happy to ignore the law and even seem to take pride in quite how much they will screw over women - by excluding the option for case by case exemptions. I am concerned about who will replace her - undoubtedly Sarah Brown will want to stand again.

And hopefully in that case any egregious abuse of power or continued refusal to abide by the law will attract media attention and send a powerful message about the agenda and what it means for women and girls.

Sarah Briwn admitted that the word gender was used over sex 'quite deliberately'. Admitting it's not an accident, or prudishness about the word sex. Deliberate attempt to erase sex as a protected characteristic and replace with gender.

Why are you happy about this trying?

If they removed disability as a protected characteristic would you be happy? Religious belief?

Or just sex? I’d love an answer.

Look at the comments below - and the huge number of recommendations - there's been a significant shift in public opinion in recent months.
Of course, TRAs are massively contributing to this with their open misogyny and hostility to women - not to mention their 'alarming' personal social media histories.

Love this comment in the Times

"You should only be allowed to use sewage disposal facilities matched to the bodily disposal apparatus you possess. Those having a projecting apparatus must use the Gents."

Comments are good on the Times piece.

Mostly, though iirc there was one offering the non-solution of relabelling the disabled and/or baby change as 'whatever'.

Unfortunately I don't doubt there are quite a lot of students in Cambridge who are still in the deep mental slumber of wokeness (though perhaps fewer than some may assume). And my understanding is that while they have to choose whether to vote there or at home in parliamentary elections, students can vote in both places in council elections.

But, students can use facilities in colleges and departments - the effect on council loos will be on other residents and the many visitors.

Removing the right to participate from public life from many BAME women and abuse survivors is not something most women would crow about.

It's also ridiculous to think that individual women have the resources to continually take organisations to court when they don't comply with The Equality Act.
A county council or employer should not need to be forced to comply with equality legislation thats been statue for nearly 50 years.

The women and Equalities Committee is asking for submissions about how the Equality Act is being undermined, and this is going to be a good example to give; along with the City of London 'consultation', and the Hampstead Ponds.

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/enforcing-the-equality-act-launch-17-19/

Look at the comments below - and the huge number of recommendations - there's been a significant shift in public opinion in recent months.

Absolutely this.

Aftershock15

All the more reason to campaign to ensure that all women and girls in Cambridge know what is at stake here.

Those comments are interesting; people getting it completely. And responding to the extreme comments, and pointing out that they are now seen as the extremists.

The tide - it turns.

Look at the comments below - and the huge number of recommendations - there's been a significant shift in public opinion in recent months

Heehee I love it! I knew our day would come.

"@Bowlofbabelfishif the council has broken any laws or parts of the EQ Act 2010 then why hasn’t there been a court case?"

Because that's not how things work? Court cases don't happen by themselves, someone needs to bring the case, that needs lawyers, money etc.

It's similar to the "just call the police" thing on a similar thread. That's not how the world works.

How the world works, all too often for women, is more like this:

"The introduction of employment tribunal fees has coincided with a significant drop
in the number of applications. Figures from the Ministry of Justice indicate a 72
per cent decline in claims accepted, comparing the first quarter of 2013/14 (when no fees were payable) to the first quarter of 2015/16.66 There is some evidence that fees have a deterrent effect on potential applicants. For example, Citizens Advice found that in over half of claims assessed as having a very good, good or 50/50 chance of success, fees or costs were cited as a reason for the claimants being unlikely to proceed.

36.The same statistics show a drop of 87 per cent in sex discrimination claims and
70 per cent in equal pay claims across Great Britain. In the last two categories,
women represent over four-fifths of claimants, indicating a disproportionate
impact. Claims for unfair dismissal/detriment relating to pregnancy decreased 34 per cent. The EHRC’s literature review provides further evidence of the disproportionate adverse impact on women in England and Wales.72 In Scotland sex discrimination claims have fallen 75 per cent and pregnancy discrimination claims fallen by 29 per cent."

From <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.at/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/file/14126/download%3Ftoken%3DAt0KL7uh&ved=2ahUKEwirkcee08ncAhVOZVAKHVaEC1QQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0xgcu8rIB3k12mWxL6kXoz" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here

That's more now things work if you're female. We fight and fight and fight and then when we finally get somewhere it's almost immediately under attack.

The people who say why hasn't there been a court case? Why not just call the police? Are speaking from a position of generally being looked after, having stuff go their way, that's the only way I can explain it.

Well with the call the police thing it could be to do with MRA beliefs- probably a mix of the two?

More coverage. It's also in Pink News

www.gaystarnews.com/article/labour-councillor-resigns-over-trans-women-using-female-bathrooms/#gs.v00Umdk

"Indierockandroll "

If it is Pink News it is a misrepresentation of the facts ...

It certainly is. Interesting to see the e-spin on the story in different media.

That link is 'gay star news' and is, as far as I could see, factual with no trans spin.

I don't know if this is in any way related to Pink News or a rival?

No it's different to Pink News.

The report in PN includes

A Labour councillor has resigned because transgender women are permitted to use women’s bathrooms.

Ann Sinnott, who had sat on Cambridge City Council for four years, left after accusing the council of being in “dereliction of the law,” saying it has “insidiously dismantled” women’s rights.

This is despite the Equality Act 2010 protecting trans people’s right to use their bathroom of choice, whether they have had surgery or not.

The Government emphasised this fact last month in response to a petition from anti-trans campaigners, but it has not stopped the activists.

From that Gay Star News article:

"The Equality Act 2010 protects trans people’s right to use their bathroom of choice."

No, this is incorrect. The protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" refers specifically to "transsexuals" [see Section 7].

Nowhere in the Equality Act 2010 is the word "transgender" used, or "gender identity" or "gender expression". None of these terms have any meaning in UK law. So, cross dressers, transvestites, autogynephiles etc do not have any legal licence to use any female facilities anywhere.

The trans lobby is deliberately misleading everyone.

See also the Transgender Umbrella:

The people who say why hasn't there been a court case? Why not just call the police? Are speaking from a position of generally being looked after,

Yes. But when you suggest that if anything happens to them in the men's toilets / changing rooms they can just call the police, suddenly that answer no longer works.

There's some really good discussion relevant to this thread here, based on some revealing words from Shon Faye. Scroll down to 18 May where this is discussed:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3251869-Shon-Faye-Ash-Shankar-review-of-Gender-quake?pg=3&order=