Has “Transgender” replaced “Gender Reassignment” in protected characteristics of Equality Act?

[Gacapa]

This is what I’ve been told after I questioned the change in my council’s terms of reference.

I’ve no idea what this actually means or how best to challenge it.

Ok I have listened to the first 8 mins of the video

I have heard that a "group of feminists" told Cambridge Cambridge that their policy breached the EA and Anne seems to have taken this at face value. Certainly she does not provide a legal argument. She also does not seem to realise that the "group of feminists" may not be legal experts and may have their own agenda to remove trans rights

You have listened to a very small part of a nuanced and considered explanation by a respected labour councillor.

So let's agree that your opinion of that is not particularly evidenced based.

The grassroots movement which led to women identifying that many LAs (including Cambridge City) had misquoted and were likely misapplying the Equalities Act 2010 is described in part here:

womansplaceuk.org/grassroots-womens-pressure-forces-local-authorities-to-comply-with-the-law-over-sex-and-gender/

Further to discussions about the situation with CAmbridge City Council:

PencilsinSpace has posted:

"Here are the minutes from the Cambridge City Council meeting where they chose to play fast and loose with the EA when it was only 10 days old.
democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=159&MId=376

The committee received apologies for absence from Cllr Boyce, Cllr Brown attended as a substitute.

10/57/SR - Annual Review of Equalities (near the bottom of the page):

Councillor Brown proposed a number of amendments to strengthen the protection for transgender employees and service users. Other members of the committee expressed support for the proposal, although it was noted additional notice about the amendment would have aided the debate. The Head of Strategy and Partnership advised the committee of a number of proposed amendments to address the concerns raised. The Scrutiny Committee endorsed the following amendments by 5 votes to 0;

· Insert into “Employment Practices” section - We will not exclude transgender people from positions, which require a gender-appropriate candidate .

· Insert into the “Valuing our customers – delivering services” section

• transgender people will not be excluded from gender-appropriate single sex/sex segregated facilities operated by the council

Shit stinks."

In the video, Ann Sinnott comments that under standard council rules, Sarah Brown as a tranwoman herself had a conflict of interests and this should have been declared / would usually have meant a councillor recused themself etc

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

If you choose to use the exceptions, you have to apply them on a case by case basis.

No. This is what the EHRC says. And they actually say in their statement supporting the GRA changes in July that the exemptions "may have to be used on a case by case basis". It's just a specific, biased legal opinion

It is more than a specific biased legal opinion. The EHRC statutory code, which courts have to have regard to is slightly different.

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

So not may, should.

See www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf sections 13.57 to 13.60 which have to be read together.

Are you interested in the potentially serious issues raised at Cambridge Sarah?

Are you interested in the potentially serious issues raised at Cambridge Sarah?

I am trying to see if there is an evidence of serious issue at Cambridge.

In the first 8mins of the discussion I heard the EA mischaracterised in that it was claimed the exceptions have to be used. They don't.

Then I have heard an allegation that in 2010 Councillor Sarah Brown breached the Localism Act 2011, which was granted royal assent on 15 November 2011. I can't see how she can have breached an act that had not been passed yet.

At this point my confidence in the legal knowledge being displayed in the discussion is at an all time low. I am not sure how I am going to learn anything by listening to the rest of it.

So my challenge remains. Show legal authorities for the claim that Cambridge Council policy breaches the EA. And show some actual evidence that Sarah brown breached the council rules.

I think watching the rest of the interview with Ann Sinnott will be helpful, as she discusses the background to the council documents linked above and raises the specific issues.

As part of the grassroots movement described by R0wan, EHRC were also challenged on their inconsistent use of sex and gender. They have now released a statement saying they are reviewing their use of language across their website and publications to ensure clarity and consistency.

The new inquiry into the enforcement of the EA asks quite a few questions about the role and powers of the EHRC and how well they are being used.

Sorry all, jumping in on this thread to ask what you make of DC schools updated EO policy. I noticed they've listed transgender as a protected characteristic in with sex, not gender reassignment. That's not right is it? I'm doubting myself as usual and happy to bow to greater knowledge, but it's one of several changes to the academies policies that I'm writing a veeeerrrry long email challenging. Before I add it in, I obviously want to be sure I've got my facts right. I'll admit that my knowledge on the whole issue isn't as vast as my knowledge of behaviour management, which is the main thing I'm challenging. But while I'm at it, I might as well chuck in the rest of the stuff I have issue with (and there's a fair amount!)

The protected characteristics are 'sex' & 'gender reassignment'

Also see the legal framework section, they have 'gender (including issues of transgender, paternity and of maternity and pregnancy)' with no mention of sex.

@Myusernameismud
There's a good article which demonstrates some of the potential serious issues in not considering sex when implementing inclusive school policies as has happened in Scotland:

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16311379.schools-forget-girls-in-rush-to-adopt-pro-trans-guidance-campaigners-claim-as-christian-group-threatens-legal-action/

I do know that sex and GR are separate characteristics, I guess I'm just questioning why the policy says 'Sex (including transgender) and then lists GR separately. Surely transgender should go in with GR? Every chance I'm reading into it a bit too much, I've got some real deep rooted issues with what's going on at DCs school atm, and sadly it's the only school in the area so we're stuck. There's a strong chance I'm now in the frame of mind where I'm picking at everything possible, which is never good!
Thanks R0wantrees, I'll have a look at that when I get a minute.

Myuser Have you seen Transgender Trend's website as they have the Schools 'Toolkit which will likely have specific information that's helpful.

www.transgendertrend.com/schools-resources/

My understanding is that with regards the Equalities Act 2010, listed protected characteristics do not include the term 'transgender'.

The Transgender Trend Schools' Toolkit has in-depth comment about the relevent legislation as it might be applied in schools from p31 onwards:

www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Transgender-Trend-Resource-Pack-for-Schools.pdf

Comparison and analysis of the Transgender Trend Schoolkit with Allsorts Schoolkit by Claire Graham at 'Correcting the Blindspot' recent event in Leeds.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=Pu9ng3tY5b0

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296082-Correcting-a-blindspot-Leeds-meeting-organised-by-Lisa-Muggeridge-and-others

So have listened the rest of the interview between Anne and Venice Allen...

The sections of EA covering the Public Sector Equality duty commenced on 6 April 2011. So a decision made by Cambridge Council on 11 October 2010 cannot have breached this.

So looks like Ann resigned over an "illegal act" that wasn't in fact illegal. Awkward that. And also still no evidence that the current policy breaches the Equality Act today.

The rest of the interview was the usual transphobic nonsense on a range of issues.

It's interesting to know your opinion SarahAr

It seems a shame that you dismiss the concerns about women and girls safety, dignity and privacy as well as the possible issues with regards allocation of council funds so lightly.

There will of course be further scrutiny of Cambridge City Council's decisions.

@AnnMSinnott seems to have a very clear belief of wrongdoing which is contrary to your summation and given her standing, position and previous role, it seems strange to discount it,

Ok, so the EHRC states that a case by case approach "should" be adopted. The EHRC is a quango. The Act itself doesn't mention this. The guidance can change. It can be challenged. The case by case basis clearly doesn't exist in some single sex services. Or it's a formality. You're not going to have a "case by case basis" assessing every single MTF individual for whether to give MTF trans people cervical smear tests. The service will only be provided to women. Even if a male believes it should be done, I don't think it would be discrimination for the NHS to refuse.

Also I found the section on Positive Action rather interesting, and the way the EHRC define it, I think it may be possible to make a case that some single sex services are "positive action" to address the disadvantages of the FEMALE sex. Obvs the 3k males with GRC would have to be included, so that's yet another reason to oppose self ID.

So thanks so much for making me read that.

Ann resigned in disgust at the blatant trashing of women's rights and protections by Cambridge City Council. I stand with her.

It doesn't matter if what Sarah Brown did was technically legal or not. It was a shitty thing to do to women and girls. Please carry on identifying ways this disgusting behaviour is within the law. It helps us identify the legal loopholes that need closing.

It was also an extreme thing to do with the EA only 10 days old. There was no case law to learn from (there still isn't), no impact assessment was done, it was noted in the meeting that 'additional notice about the amendment would have aided the debate', suggesting that the other councillors may have been put on the spot. There is no evidence that Cambridge City Councillors took legal advice at all before passing these amendments.

What makes it even more extreme is that Cllr Brown was at that meeting as a substitute for Cllr Boyce who sent apologies. Brown was welcomed to their first meeting by the chair, just a few months after being elected as a councillor.

Some people may see it as a 'gotcha' that Brown's amendments were passed in the brief window before the PSED became law. I just see it as very interesting timing. There is a lot of interesting timing around this whole affair.

'Case by case' needs challenging.

It's not in the EA itself, the first place it crops up is EHRC's statutory code. While this code carries a lot of legal weight, it's not the law. It can be challenged if it can be shown to misinterpret the law.

It's not clear where 'case by case' came from in EHRC's code. Their post consultation report says they talked to 'a diverse group of expert and specialist stakeholders' (so not service users).

Women's orgs they consulted:

An-Nisa (assume this is a Muslim women's group?)
Chwarae Teg (Wales)
Fawcett Society
Maternity Action
Scottish Women’s Aid
Women's Resource Centre

LGBT orgs they consulted:

a:gender
Accord Coalition (Ireland)
Gires
Press for Change
Stonewall
Stonewall Housing

(worth noting - this is before Ruth Hunt at Stonewall so they were probably mostly still advocating for gay men rather than trans)

From page 11:

vii. Various transsexual stakeholder groups responded to the formal consultation and also participated in the parallel consultation events taking place on the non-statutory guidance.

Feedback from the consultation events was incorporated into the employment and services codes where appropriate, particularly on issues of confidentiality, use of single sex services and the legal definition of transgender.

From page 13:

e. Services, public functions and associations

• A number of concerns were raised about the exceptions, in particular the exceptions for charities, single sex services and separate services.
These sections have been revised as a result.

So it looks like 'case by case' in EHRC's staturory code has come about because of pressure from trans lobbying groups, most likely Press For Change and GIRES.

More than 'proportionate means', more than 'legitimate aim' (both of which appear in the EA itself), 'case by case' scuppers our chances of using the single sex exceptions. It turns any legal fight we might bring into a personal dispute against this particular tw and why we have sought to exclude this particular tw from a female only space.

'Case by case' means service providers have no right to provide female only space, even where this is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. You can have a female-only policy but you still have to consider whether it should apply to this particular tw - every single time.

If the government is reassuring us that we still have single sex exemptions we clearly need to be able to use them. Otherwise it's no reassurance at all.

It seems a shame that you dismiss the concerns about women and girls safety, dignity and privacy

Article today 'Fife teen on sex offenders register after supermarket child attacks'
(extract)
"The court was told a 10-year-old girl had been inside the toilets while her father waited outside.

Miss Lumsden said: “The complainer’s dad then heard his daughter screaming and came running out of the bathroom, looking as if she was running away from someone.

“She explained that a crazy man with long hair was in the bathroom and had grabbed her face and pushed her into a cubicle, before demanding she take her trousers off.

“She said the person had said they would stab her mum. She was upset and inconsolable.”

Police officers attended and found the cubicle locked inside the female toilets.

A male voice was heard coming from inside, saying: “I’ve been silly. I bumped into her. I’ve been silly.”

The teenager was taken to Kirkcaldy police station and charged." (continues)

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/702003/fife-teen-on-sex-offenders-register-after-supermarket-child-attacks/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3329936-teen-films-girl-in-toilet

With regards the incidents described above I make the following observations based on the article cited:

The article describes the offender solely in gender neutral terms (the 17-year-old, teenager, the accused, his client) and uses the pronoun 'their'.

The references to description and voice being that of 'man / male' are reported speech and in quotation marks.

Well, you’re going to love this.

Not only are LCC not backing down and not changing it back to “gender reassignment”. They’ve said it’s down to a legal precedent and given an example of how it would be unlawful to stop a man who’s had no surgery or medical assessments to identify as female if he wanted to go to a woman’s prison. I never even mentioned anything to do with prisons or gave any angle on this whatsoever.

So they have tried to gain my SYMPATHY by trying to make me feel sorry for male criminals! Like this would bizarrely give me a lightbulb moment!

So they have tried to gain my SYMPATHY by trying to make me feel sorry for male criminals! Like this would bizarrely give me a lightbulb moment!

It sounds like they are basing this on recent news stories for the precedent.

Spectator article by Ann Sinnott:
'I’ve quit the Labour Party because it has betrayed women'
(extract)
"I was elected as a Labour Councillor to Cambridge City Council in 2014 and re elected in May this year. Just five weeks after the elections, the Council’s breach of the 2010 Equality Act surfaced on Twitter. Just ten days after the Act became law, an amendment to the Council’s Equality policy had been voted through committee. This amendment abolished women-only facilities in the city including toilets and changing rooms – and plunged the council into illegality. It meant that male-born transwomen could access female facilities.

The council further breached the Act by failing to consult with women and by not conducting an Equality Impact Assessment to assess potential negative consequences on those affected by the change. Instead of taking immediate steps to remedy its illegality by rescinding the amendment, the Council decided to prevaricate until October, and thereby kept the matter under wraps.

I had no wish to be party to unlawfulness, nor did I want to collude in keeping it from Cambridge women and other residents who had the right to know. I did not want to be a member of a Council that failed to recognise that female-only facilities are needed by women as a generality. Nor did I wish to be associated with a Council that effectively treated Cambridge women with contempt, while it insidiously dismantled their rights. When it became clear that the Council was immovable in its I obduracy, I resigned in July.

Today, I announce that I am leaving the Labour Party altogether." (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/ive-quit-the-labour-party-because-it-has-betrayed-women/
thread discussing article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3330494-leaving-labour-party-letter