So on what legal grounds does a man/transwoman have the right to enter women-only spaces?

[ThePrincipal]

And on what legal grounds can women change them?

Seems like trans don’t have the right to (legally) but people act as if they do?

Please break it down for me.

I know women who will firmly walk into men's toilets if the queues in the women's toilets are too long. It's not a one-way thing.

No, ThePrincipal, that’s not all. The two years as a woman is only one of the criteria for the GRC currently. There is also a requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphasia from a doctor and you have to provide details of any treatment you’ve received.

Sure. Not a one way thing.

But are the men concerned about this happening from the POV of safeguarding or embarrassment?

Are they even concerned at all or just bemused?

I know women who will firmly walk into men's toilets if the queues in the women's toilets are too long. It's not a one-way thing.

The context for this is of course that women have been discriminated against in public toilet provision.

Allocating equal space for male/female whilst installing urinals in the 'gents' means that in spaces where there are equal numbers of males-females, there will always be significant differences in the length of the queues.

Its very different.

Caring/support worker provision.

Often women put down in their care provision statements that they want intimate care done by a female bodied person only.

Occasionally men will request that a male bodied person deal with their intimate care, and this is adhered to, though more often than not those males who don't specify, really desire a young, fit female worker to take care of their intimate care, especially those males who are middle aged or elderly.

When it says case by case, is that transwoman by transwoman, or setting by setting? E.g. if the assessment is that allowing transwomen to use a women's swimming session would deter a target group of Muslim women, they could exclude TW? The latter was the impression I had from reading the EA, but TRAs seem to be implying the former which makes it basically impossible to apply the exclusion. The assessment in a case like that simply wouldn't vary from TW to TW, it's no fault of the TW involved that their presence is harmful to the purpose of the session.

Occasionally men will request that a male bodied person deal with their intimate care, and this is adhered to, though more often than not those males who don't specify, really desire a young, fit female worker to take care of their intimate care, especially those males who are middle aged or elderly

The second part of your sentence from though more often ... is your prejudice showing and is irrelevant to any point being made in this thread.

You have no idea what their preference is beyond "some one qualified and capable to do the job".

There is very little case law in this area and different people interpret it differently.

The idea that service providers have the resources to decide who should use services on a case by case basis is ridiculous, and also encourages discrimination. You don’t get to use a disabled parking space on a ‘case by case’ basis. There are clear rules.

Why would apparently some men be included and others excluded? Are trans person being excluded because somebody thinks they aren’t trans enough? Are women now being excluded because organisations can exclude people on a whim?

The whole justification for Equalities act exceptions breaks down if everything is decided on a case by case basis

The rules for deciding who is ‘transsexual enough’ surely is what the GRC is if they ‘pass’.

It all boils down to conflating

Sex with gender
Transsexual with transgender

Isn’t it? That’s when it all gets into a mess you can’t untangle, and all the going round and round in circles.

The Girl Guides apparently think that guide leaders are fully equipped to decide that person 'a' is just trying it on, person 'b' identifies as a girl and therefore is a girl, whether person 'c' who is non-binary should be admitted, and that person 'd' who has been a Rainbow and a Brownie but now thinks they might be a boy should leave pronto.

All while trying to get an extra adult to volunteer for Remembrance Sunday and plan the Christmas party.

Lass I can assure you that it isn't prejudice at all, it often happens. Older females, are told to bugger off (I'm putting this nicely).

This isn't particularly relevant to this post but one has to ponder.

It is a strategy that men on mixed wards are given their medicines before the women.

catkind - When it says case by case, is that transwoman by transwoman, or setting by setting?

TW by TW. The statutory code says,

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.

And yes, it makes the exception almost impossible to use. The effect of is that if a women-only service wishes to use this exception and is legally challenged by a TW, the case becomes personal.

The test is no longer whether it's justified and proportionate for women to have female only space in a specific circumstance. The test is now whether this particular TW is 'woman enough' for female service users to be expected to turn a blind eye to their maleness and accept them personally into what was a female only space.

'Case by case' means that no-one has the right to run women only services any more. You can have it as a policy but 'case by case' overrules your policy so you can never guarantee female only space to your service users.

Statutory Code is not the law but carries a lot of legal weight. If a service provider was taken to court they would have to show very good justification for not following it.

The rules for deciding who is ‘transsexual enough’ surely is what the GRC is if they ‘pass’.

GRC doesn't have anything to do with whether a trans person passes or not. You need 2 years' worth of docs to prove you have been 'living as' a woman/man and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. You also need a report (can be from your GP) detailing what treatment you have had, if any. If you haven't had surgery you have to say why but you can put any reason.

If you are married you need your spouse's consent to legally change your sex while remaining married, because a marriage is a contract between two people and the terms of a contract should only be changed with the agreement of all parties. If your spouse doesn't consent you are given a quick, no fault means of ending the marriage before proceeding with your legal sex change.

You need £140 but there is a fee waiver for those on a low income.

Basically the GRA was brought in so the government could avoid legalising same sex marriage in 2004. It's obsolete now.

You can have it as a policy but 'case by case' overrules your policy so you can never guarantee female only space to your service users.

It doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not allowed to be a Catholic priest, but it isn't personal, it's just that I'm a woman and exceptions in the Equalities Act make it legal to discriminate.

On the other hand, if I want to have a service specifically for women, men who say they identify as female (with or without a GRC) can only be excluded on a case by case basis.

Of course it doesn't make sense. Press for Change (Whittle) and GIRES pushed EHRC to add it. It was never intended to be workable.

There was a whole load of transactivism that went on quietly in 2010-11 when the EA was new and the guidance was being written. See also Sarah Brown and Cambridge City Council.

The protected characteristic 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act is the key that opened the door to women's spaces and services.

According to the law, you can claim the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' if you say that you intend to go through the process. You don't have to mean it. You don't have to prove it. You don't need a note from a doctor or a counsellor.

Since it is unlawful to discriminate against someone claiming this protected characteristic, it would be a brave woman/man/organisation that excluded them from women's spaces.

The trans lobby said that the protected characteristic ought to be 'tidied up' and gender reassignment replaced with the words gender identity - and indeed the Parliamentary Committee agreed.

And then the Committee back-tracked by saying 'there will be no changes to the Equality Act, honest'.

The fact is, that we want to see a change to the Equality Act because it introduced self i/d by stealth. We want to exclude all those people who claim to be trans without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and have no health care supervision.

twitter.com/docstockk/status/1055412292517543937?s=21

This articulates clearly in words what I could only have a gut instinct about.

I thought gender reassignment refer to transsexuals not transgender, and that it is AFTER the transition to the opposite ‘SEX’ (for legal purposes, because obviously sex cannot be changed) I.e. it is still binary is not intended to cover the undefinable ‘transgender’.

They need to cu5 out any references to gender in the EA to stop this madness.

Cut not cu5

From the EA:

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

All you have to do is say 'I am trans' to be protected. Note the wording 'physiological or other attributes of sex' - as if there are attributes of sex that are not physiological

You're also protected if you're not trans but are perceived to be trans.