Is this statement legally correct

[SleepyKat]

"People who are undergoing gender reassignment are protected under the law regardless of which stage of transition they are in, or whether their transition is under medical supervision."

I mean it's nice and vague. I know that everyone is protected by law from assault, etc but that's the same whether trans or not. This is online equality act training and I thought a GRC was needed for legal protection?

That statement is correct in terms of the equality act - it is not permitted to discriminate against someone for undertaking gender reassignment regardless of the stage.

So anyone with a penis can go in a women's changing room and walk around naked?

According to gov.uk all they need to do is tell ONE person.

No, being in the process of transition is protected

But what it doesn’t mean is that the individual should be treated as a member of the opposite sex

They should not be discriminated against in comparison to their own sex. So a male starting the process of transition should not be prevented from using the men’s toilets at their work for example

So anyone with a penis can go in a women's changing room and walk around naked?

No. That’s how some organisations are interpreting the legislation but I would disagree with them.

No. That’s how some organisations are interpreting the legislation but I would disagree with them.

That's how I think my organisation are interpreting it. One of the scenarios was about a male employee deciding they're female and they start using the female toilets and their female colleagues complain. Answer to the scenario is that the female colleagues are wrong, they're discriminating against a legally protected person and should be dealt with.

I don't think it's how the organisations are interpreting it, I think they are listening to other organisations with a vested interest as to how they think it should be interpreted, maybe if the actually looked into the act themselves or spoke to a wide range of organisations they would come to a different conclusion about the interpretation.

So anyone with a penis can go in a women's changing room and walk around naked?

Yes

In that circumstance they're not excluded for being trans (or proposing to trans) - they're being excluded because they're male.

If the company were to say that because you're trans, you're not to use the male toilets either, but must use the accessible, mixed-sex toilet, then that would be discrimination.

TBH, it seems to me, that if the women in this case the people being discriminated against are the women - they are being denied a single sex toilet, unlike the men in the organisation, therefore, they are being treated unequally (similarly with a female trans person in the mens toilets, the men would be being treated unequally).

The trouble is that we're so used to women being treated unequally, that it doesn't even occur to lots of people that it could matter. Toilet provision for women is woefully inadequate for women compared to that for men in so many places, that making it a bit worse again is just a drop in the ocean.

The scenarios are always about women having to shut up and be retrained aren't they?

I'd love to see a scenario which says Sue has become Bob and insists on using the blokes toilets and the blokes have to put up and let her stand there and watch them at the urinals.

We do actually have 2x MTF trans people at work and they use the women's toilets. Personally I'm not bothered - but I'm bothered that people who it does bother are being silenced.

I think that statement is broadly correct. Until a person gets a GRC they’re treated as their legal sex under EA, but single sex provision only comes into effectiveness if the service/facility is protected under the single-sex exemptions. So, there is no law that says a man can’t enter a womens’ toilet or changing area unless the area has been specifically designated for the use of women only and the proprietor specifically invokes the single-sex exemptions.

The problem is that the single-sex exemptions aren’t widely understood, and because cases have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis the terms of them are unclear, for eg if case-by-case means for each individual transperson or each individual service or facility. Not to mention the pressure TRAs pile onto any business or org who try to maintain single-sex provision. Most would rather cave in than get dragged into a costly and lengthy battle. I don’t think there’s any good case law about this, so it would mean someone bringing a test case, and nobody seems inclined to do it, because of cost, but also because of the tsunami of bad press they’d get for being transphobic.

No, people with penises don't have a legal right to access any women's space. The Equalities Act allows for proportionate exceptions to the general principle that someone in the process of obtaining a GRC be treated as their legally acquired sex - but a case has to be made.

It's pretty clear though from the relevant section of the act that gym changing rooms are precisely the sort of situation envisaged as a reasonable exception. It is perfectly lawful to segregate these on the basis of sex rather than gender reassignment.

In the US there was a famous case about people who could choose the gym changing room which matched their gender and not their sex. I am sure there was a similar incident in a UK gym earlier this year?
Lily Madigan managed to force their school to back down and let Lily use the girl's facilities.

www.clubindustry.com/news/planet-fitness-transgender-locker-room-case-can-go-trial-michigan-supreme-court-rules

They are more or less correct as regards the breadth of protected characteristic ‘gender reassignment’ they are completely wrong when they conclude that someone’s with that PC has to be treated as a member of the opposite sex in all circumstances.

This article from Dec 18. It was Puregym.

www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/puregym-trans-woman-changing-room

UK and US law are quite different on this.

The problem with UK law is that while it is perfectly legal to exclude people with penises, the gym owner has to choose to use the allowed exemptions under the EA - and most make the craven decision to cave in to the noisiest, most litiguously minded pressure group rather than standing up for women.

Protected from discrimination (treated less favourably compared to other males without that protected characteristic) : usual legal coverage, same as being gay or BAME or of a particular faith. That characteristic cannot be a reason to discriminate in employment for example, same as 'we don't want that person because they're pregnant/BAME/Catholic etc. The comparator class is other males.

Access to single sex spaces isn't discrimination. The EQA specifically references that even with a GRA single sex spaces for women can still be maintained where it is in the interests of biological women to do so.

Same basic argument every time: it is discrimination not to erase half the human race's sex class and sex based protections, because less than 1% of males want to be able to call themselves women too.

Want vs need. No care for what happens to half the human race in prioritising male wants/feelings over women's rights/needs, you can only think this is right if you have a sexist belief that people born with penises are much more important than people born with vaginas.

"People who are undergoing gender reassignment are protected under the law regardless of which stage of transition they are in, or whether their transition is under medical supervision."

I understand that the equality protection is that people “undergoing gender reassignment” should not suffer discrimination compared to people who aren't: it's not reasonable for an employer to sack someone for being trans. The comparison, though, is against people who aren't trans, but are otherwise the same. So, you shouldn't treat a transwoman worse than any other male. There's case law on this, although perhaps not much — what people cite is Green, R (2013) about a trans prisoner in a male prison who brought a discrimination case against the authorities.

“66. A comparator has to be found in order for there to be discrimination or for the claimant to show she has had less favourable treatment. The claimant asserts the comparator should be a female prisoner; whereas the governor contends it should be a male prisoner. There can be no doubt the claimant has a protected characteristic gender reassignment. The claimant is, however, male. The only possible comparator is to a male prisoner who is not undergoing gender reassignment.”

www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7bb60d03e7f57eb1a1f#p_70

I find this forum an incredible source of information, and I think many people on here are far more clued up than the vast majority of the public.
There is one thing which really confuses me. The Equality Act of 2010, clearly states that "sex" is a protected characteristic, so why is it legal to allow transwomen/transgirls access to women's/girl's spaces?

so why is it legal to allow transwomen/transgirls access to women's/girl's spaces?

Under the current law, it is legal to exclude trans people from opposite sex spaces.

It is unlawful to discriminate against a trans person on the basis of gender reassignment, but this really applies to getting jobs/benefits/housing/etc. It doesn't actually say that trans people can freely go into any opposite sex spaces whenever they want.

TRAs have basically used bullying tactics to make organisations ignore the law.

People who are undergoing gender reassignment are protected under the law regardless of which stage of transition they are in, or whether their transition is under medical supervision

In the UK this is actually true to an extent. A man only has to say something like "I am considering gender reassignment" to fall into the gender reassignment protected category.
However, discrimination only applies in the same way it applies to everyone else. Being turned down for a job / being assaulted on the basis of your characteristics / being deprived of medical needs because of your characteristics.
It was never supposed to mean eg men being able to race in the women's race because they are considering gender reassignment surgery etc.

It is even lawful to exclude a trans person with a GRC from the opposite sex space, this is written into the GRA.

The law needs to be re written, to make it cleared that it is lawful to uphold same sex spaces because so many organisations have been gaslighted by TRAs. No one (running organisations) knows what to do about it, they just take the easy route to avoid being bullied and hassled any further.

I’m cross that my organisation then which is a massive one, employing thousands and thousands of people are misinterpreting it and spreading stuff which isn’t legally correct as part of their mandatory e-learning.

I’m cross that my organisation then which is a massive one, employing thousands and thousands of people are misinterpreting it and spreading stuff which isn’t legally correct as part of their mandatory e-learning.

Are you sure they’re saying they legally must allow TW to use the ladies? Or are they saying it’s their policy?

Your organisation and many others has been spoonfed enthusiastic and politically motivated misinformation and mis interpretation of the law as 'truth'. See: Policy Capture.

The TRA political aim will be to achieve this by stealth one policy at a time, and by telling everyone loudly this is already law, already happens and no one's had a problem, so this is paperwork just catching up. Needs repeated confrontation with actual truth and actual reality, and actual law. And women being bloody difficult.

Qcng - "TRAs have basically used bullying tactics to make organisations ignore the law."

Thanks, that confirms what I suspected, which is really weird, because it is a bit like Rachel McKinnon's philosophy thesis, where you don't have to know stuff or even be correct, as long as you put your point over forcefully enough.
Organisations such as Stonewall and Mermaids need to be challenged and the police need to be held to account for their part in aiding the aforesaid organisations.