Times removes inaccurate story about trans women's right to use female toilets

[valleysval]

Good to see the Times pulling an inaccurate story claiming that trans women were not allowed to use female toilets when, as we all know, that right is already protected by the Equality Act.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation ruling said:
“The article’s headline and standfirst had stated that the city’s toilets were not currently open to trans people. The publication had accepted that it had no basis for this claim; there had been a failure to take care over the accuracy of this information…”

www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-pulls-trans-toilets-article-after-accuracy-complaint/

Good. I was so pissed off with The Times at this story, after all Andrew Gillighan's good work.

I shared my thoughts with the writer of this misleading piece on Twitter.

"Good to see the Times pulling an inaccurate story claiming that trans women were not allowed to use female toilets when, as we all know, that right is already protected by the Equality Act."

Er, you what?

The Equality Act does not create a 'right' for transwomen to use female toilets, what it does, is permit organisations to exclude transwomen from female toilets, however this is not an automatic process, that was the inaccuracy here.

No need to 'correct' with more nonsense.

Where in the Equality Act does it say ‘transwomen’ have a right to use female toilets?

It says men undergoing gender reassignment may not be discriminated against - in other words they can not be excluded from MENS toilets and must be treated like other men.

It also say men with a GRC that provides them with the legal fiction of womenhood may still be excluded from certain single sex spaces for women.

as we all know, that right is already protected by the Equality Act

That's news to me.

What is this nonsense?! This is rubbish!

Its not law that men have access to female toilet facility's. What is this fresh rot!

In practice men do have access to female toilets, but it is not a right.

I don't know why the Times backed down on this. They were right in the first place. I think we should put a complaint into IPSO that their correction is misleading

Sunday Times, sorry!

Good try!

Seems like IPSO don't know the law and took this Amelia Bee's word for it.

I'm none the wiser.

Firstly, are there any laws governing use of toilets? You can't actually be arrested for entering the 'wrong' one.

And doesn't the EA give organisations the ability to grant exemptions (eg restrict access to a service just to women) but it doesn't compel them to do so.

And aren't people with a GRC legally considered to be their acquired sex (with a few specific exceptions), so if the protected characteristic of sex (woman) is invoked, a GRC transwoman would be included as a woman?

So isn't it the case that no one is prevented by law from entering any toilet, and if an EA sex exemption were invoked, a GRC transwoman wouldn't be prevented from using a woman's toilet?

Or have I got that wrong?

So is Maria Miller correct when she says women only services are protected by the Equality Act or not?

If you check Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 it qualifies the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment; as applying only to "transsexuals"; ie: those who have a GRC issued in accord with the GRA 2004. [One cannot be a "transsexual" if the sex on the Birth Certificate has not been changed?]

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

See also: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/1/4

The terms "transgender", "transwoman". "transman", "gender identity", "gender expression" do not exist in any UK law and have zero legal meaning.

No male born person has a "right" in any UK law to access toilets / changing rooms / or any other space designated for the sex class that is female. Yet again, trans lobby is willfully misrepresenting UK law.

)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.

Why do you think the erasure of women as a distinct legal class along with all of our rights is is good to see?

valleysval Yes ... if you read the GRA 2004, this is the process for obtaining a GRC to enable a change to the Birth Certificate [not all applicants can have medication or surgery for various health reasons] but they must have a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" plus have lived "in role" for two years. A transsexual is a person who has legally changed the sex reference on their Birth Certificate. [Even changing that sex reference does not give any male born person the right to access any space designated for any female born person.]

"Transgender", "gender identity" etc are not recognised in any way in any UK law.

Wow, for a press organ about the press, the Press Gazzette sure does sloppy reporting. The decision from IPSO doesn't say what valleysval, pressgazette & pinknews are claiming it says:

www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04770-18

The remedy offered by the Sunday Times - a clarification on the Letters page - was accepted as sufficient by IPSO right off the bat. Here's what it said:

Our report ‘Ladies loos at City landmarks may open to trans women’ (News, July 29) was misleading because it did not accurately explain the current rights of transgender women under the Equality Act. Service providers can allow transgender people to use single sex spaces such as toilets but can exclude them if this can be justified as a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim.

This is the opposite of saying transwomen have a right to use female loos under the EA. Service providers can decide to allow them in, but can also exclude them. Transwomen have no automatic right of access.

The complainant, Amelia Bee, had wanted the Sunday Times to apologize to the transgender community, state that "transgender access to single sex spaces does not correlate with increased criminal activity" & disavow "the term ‘self-identifying transgender women’ as 'unhelpful' because all transgender people ‘self-identify’." She didn't get anything that came close, so it's misleading to suggest she's the victor here.

The fact that the SundayTimes deep-sixed the piece following the complaint to IPSO doesn't mean IPSO ordered them to do so. They probably pulled it to avoid further hassle & expense, & because they didn't consider it worth fighting or losing money over. In journalism, a longstanding rule has always been, "today's paper, tomorrow's fishwrap", so dumping this one piece for the sake of expediency probably would not have been considered that big a deal at Times HQ.

Also, it doesn't look like any experts in equalities-law were involved in IPSO's decision; none is mentioned or referenced. The claims about the Equalities Act in the decision appear to be just claims asserted by the complainant.

Or that's how I read it. I might be wrong. See for yourselves.

Vegilante ... it is interesting that the trans lobby has misrepresented the term "transsexuals" as being synonymous with the term "transgender women". In UK law there is no such entity as a "transgender woman" or "transgender man". Only transsexuals [those who have successfully qualified to have their Birth Certificates changed] are recognised in UK law.

"If you check Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 it qualifies the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment; as applying only to "transsexuals"; ie: those who have a GRC issued in accord with the GRA 2004."

That's not correct, Jacky.

If you are even 'proposing' to undergo a 'process' of changing sex, then have the 'protected characteristic of gender reassignment'.

Such a process could be something as simple as putting on a dress. It is not at all connected to a GRC.

As such, for example, an 18 stone 6'4" man with short hair & his arse hanging out of jeans going into the woman's toilet COULD have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

And how? He simply says 'I am proposing to change gender'.

So all white men (and they love doing this, IME) can claim 'protected characteristic', simply by claiming. And you cannot refute that there is no objective definition there.

For example, David Cameron COULD claim to be proposing to change to female, but he could NOT claim the protected characteristic of 'race' as a black man, nor the protected characteristic of 'pregnancy', 'disability', etc. Because these are objective realities.

Transgender is nothing objective. I say I am trans, therefore I am.

Anyway, the issue of the Equality Act is that it creates this 'protected characteristic', it puts eggshells on the floor that you have to beware of. Any time you challenge someone who looks wrong they can claim to be trans and you are in all kinds of shit.

What the Equality Act says is that:

"Gender reassignment
28(1)A person does not [commit] gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—

(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex."

So in other words you do NOT commit gender reassignment discrimination IF you can show that it is both proportionate and legitimate.

Unfortunately "this will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance." www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

Hence any time you say 'no transwomen', then you are opening yourself up to lawsuits & being publicly pilloried, etc.

It is not clear whether excluding transwomen from public toilets would be found to be legitimate or proportionate - I suspect not, but the bigger problem is that the vagueness of this is such that you have a de facto state of men (because 'transgender' doesn't mean anything) being able to go wherever they like.

QuietContraryMary "If you are even 'proposing' to undergo a 'process' of changing sex, then have the 'protected characteristic of gender reassignment'."

Indeed ... a person can have a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" and have lived "in role" as required and 'propose' that they are applying for a GRC to "change sex" [ie propose to get their Birth certificate changed] and qualify for the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.

I think this may be where the trans lobby has misrepresented the law to everyone, by encouraging the belief that the terms "transsexual" and "transgender" have equal legal status. They don't. Only "transsexual" is a legally recognised term and what is a "transsexual" if it is not a person who has had their legal Birth Certificate changed from their birth sex to the Legal Fiction that becomes their "legal sex"?

to be clear, GRCs aren't really relevant to the Equalities Act.

A GRC changes your gender in law.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, however, is not in any way contingent on a GRC.

Moreover, you can ignore GRCs when pursuing a 'legitimate aim' as discussed above.

What a GRC does do is change your 'sex' in law, where your legal 'sex' is relevant. In addition, e.g., the prison service has chosen to treat people with GRCs differently from those who do not have them, even though this is not required by law.

A GRC does not, in general, significantly change the question of discrimination.

QuietContraryMary "A GRC changes your gender in law."

No .. GRC changes a person's sex in law.

Sex = female; gender = learned stereotyped behaviours described as feminine / femininity

Sex = male; gender = learned stereotyped behaviours described as masculine / masculinity

"GRCs aren't really relevant to the Equalities Act."

This is inaccurate, since Section 7 is very specific that it refers to "transsexuals" when referring to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' [wherein the law erroneously conflates 'gender' with 'sex' and uses the terms synonymously].

QuietContraryMary Note also that, in reference to the protected characteristic of 'sex', the Equality Act 2010 defines this:

man = a male of any age
woman = female of any age

[so it seems that here in this law, it understands what sex is as compared with 'gender'].

see Section 212: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

to be clear, GRCs aren't really relevant to the Equalities Act.

They are relevant to an extent because a person who has changed their legal gender from male to female is classed as a member of the female sex legally. Whereas a person without a GRC is not. Which means there is a higher bar to excluding them from female single sex spaces. Which in practice lets everyone in.

The EHRC has changed its guidance to make that legal difference clear. It's all a confusing messy patchwork.