2010 equality act tested in court.

[Almatera]

I've seen many times here how some of you think toilets etc are protected by sex not gender. Not true however, the law was tested in court and here's the result. www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

I think we are all aware that those holding a gender reassignment certificate are protected against discrimination under the Equality Act.

Your claim that gender is and sex is not also a protected characteristic under the came act is in error. "Gender reassignment" is the protected category. Not Gender. You can look it up. There are nine protected categories. Gender is not one of them.

If you are here to try to gloat about a reduction of privacy and safety for women and girls, then you should learn how to link so that we can see what your gloating is based on.

Have you read the EA 2010 OP? You come across as ill-informed.... And your post comes across as goady. Not a good look round here.

Knob off

I love it when Anti Female Activists come to tell us what we do and don’t think.

TRAs lobbied really hard for these situations to be decided on a 'case by case' basis. That's in the statutory code now (although not in the law).

You can't have any legal precedent if it's all 'case by case'. This ruling is only relevant to this particular pub and this particular tw. You've shat all over your own rights as well as ours.

Oops.

Bye Almatera - till the next time...

Criminy! How the eff many sock puppets do the TRAs have?

Eleventy eleventy eleventy eleven TBW

We see them x

Golly you guys are fun. Ok here's how the law stands under eq2010 it would be illegal to discriminate against someone based on a protected characteristic. You cannot discriminate against one based on the other. Gender reassignment just means you are transitioning or have said you are considering it. There is no requirement to have transitioned or have a vaginoplasty.
There is no such thing in law as a sex segregated place like toilets or changing rooms. The reason that the "case by case" basis was put into eq2010 was for places like prisons so you couldn't get people saying "I'm a woman" and getting transferred to a woman's prison or accessing a rape centre. These provisions are already in law and they are not going to be changed. Rape crisis centres (where I live anyway as I seem to live in a more enlightened country) have been inclusive of trans women for years pre dating eq2010 and also accept men who have been victims of sexual violence. I'm no man or fan of men but this is how it is and the law was put into place to prevent discrimination where it seems a lot of people want it to be removed so they can discriminate.

I just love it when a bloke goes 'ner ner you can't ever get away from me' it's just so inclusive and kind

Ah, the handmaidens are out in force this morning, I see.

put into eq2010 was for places like prisons so you couldn't get people saying "I'm a woman" and getting transferred to a woman's prison or accessing a rape centre

That worked well then eh?

Is this what you call transplaining?

There is no requirement to have transitioned or have a vaginoplasty.

Because you guys are all about getting the Stunning and Brave LadyCock into female spaces, aren't you?

Perhaps stop pushing the dominant male agenda onto females. No matter how Stunning and Brave a LadyCock may well be, females don't want them in their sex segregated spaces.

"No" is a complete sentence. Stop trying to convince us.

Odd how you never see woke guys shouting "TMAM!!!". They don't give a shit because they really believe that TMAW, therefore unimportant.

You sometimes see people wittering on about TWAW on Twitter and adding “and TMAM” but it’s so obviously an afterthought.

OP you are either misrepresenting or don't understand the law. Fair Play for Women has some good briefings on this on their website.

Thanks for the lordly pronouncements but anti-woman activism holds no weight with me so I'll be contributing to more interesting threads today.

Almatera

Whats so funny about discriminating against women who cannot share mixed sex spaces? Can you list the identities of those women?

Wow abusing something that was put in place to protect women and disabled people’s rights to make a point.

Just two of the groups trampled all over by this self indulgent shite.

Incident reported this week (Scotland) two girls aged 10 & 12 were sexually assaulted in women's supermarket toilets by 17yr old who seems likely male & does not identify as a man:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3329936-teen-films-girl-in-toilet

Former Cllr Ann Sinnott talks about her resignation when it became clear to her the extent to which Cambridge City council had and were failing to uphold women's sex based protections & The Equalities Act 2010. In conversation with Venice Allen:
www.youtube.com/embed/wgHOgO5HX1o

thread discussing her resignation and The Times article which announced it:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

Spectator article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3330494-Cambridge-councillor-resigns-from-post-and-leaves-Labour-Party-over-betrayal-of-women-read-her-letter-here

17/7/18 "A TRANSGENDER prisoner has been accused of sexually assaulting four female inmates after being sent to a women’s prison...
The inmate was sent there despite not having had gender reassignment surgery."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3309758-This-never-happens-male-offenders-in-female-prisons

Possible attempts to replace 'Gender reassignment' with 'Transgender' as protected characteristic:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327711-Has-Transgender-replaced-Gender-Reassignment-in-protected-characteristics-of-Equality-Act

This was a decision of the County Court - the lowest civil court - and as such it does not make legal precedent.

It's impossible to know the full detail of the court's decision because County Court decisions are not reported like those of the higher courts.

However from the summary the court has not said that it is "not true" that toilets are protected by sex not gender.

There is no protected characteristic of gender in equality legislation.

The two relevant PCs are sex and gender reassignment.

The Equality Act says that services may be provided separately or differently for people of each sex, and that it is not sex discrimination provided that is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

There is no obligation under equality legislation for organisations to provide single sex toilets (or any kind of toilets for that matter). The law means that when they do they are allowed to provide separate toilets for people of each sex and this is not sex discrimination.

What I get from the outline of the court's judgment is that this transwoman was treated quite badly by the landlord even after she was asked not to use the ladies toilets, to the extent that she won her claim of harassment. Whatever ones views on transwomen accessing women only facilities, I think we all agree that transwomen should not be harassed or abused.

The entire reason that the protected characteristic of sex is allowed ‘exemptions’ under 2010 act is to legally exclude transpeople.

I realise that is upsetting for those it excludes but the exemption was created due to the proven need for single sex spaces.

No individual person should be singled out for harassment in any circumstances.

I agree that the act has to exclude trans people, given the new umbrella of Trans that Stonewall has created.