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?

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

Well it's equality act training which suggests it's to do with the law.

The answer to the scenario said that the complaining women need to be told that legally the Trans person can't be discriminated against and must be allowed to use the toilet. Which reads that they're saying it's law not policy. So where's the law for single sex space?

I watched a session of evidence during the consultation on the equalities act. A lawyer giving evidence said her view was that (as people have been saying on this thread) the test to see if someone with the pc of g reassignment has been discriminated against, is whether they were treated worse than other people who were the same legal sex. So for a tw without a grc this would be in comparison to men using the service.

But from memory the guidence from the ehrc is not at all clear on this.

I wish I could challenge this but not sure I feel confident to.

Can you find out who wrote or advised on the e learning?

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.

Case by case does not appear anywhere in the equality act. It comes from EHRC statutory code and EHRC are quite clear they mean each individual trans person, not each individual service or facility.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

Obviously this is unworkable.

One of the outcomes of the recent inquiry into enforcing the equality act and the role of the EHRC is that we are to get new statutory code to clarify the way the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment interact. So hopefully the new statutory code will be less shit:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147012.htm#_idTextAnchor102

Balancing rights in single-sex services

28.While the apparent failure of significant numbers of public sector commissioners to properly apply the public sector equality duty to their decision making is a problem of understanding and not of the law itself, it is a clear example of what is going wrong because of the current system of equality law enforcement. This cannot be left to affected organisations to fix. As Women’s Aid made clear, they do not have the resources to do so. (Paragraph 167)

29.We recommend that the Government Equalities Office issue a clear statement of the law on single-sex services to all Departments, including the requirement under the public sector equality duty for commissioners of services to actively consider commissioning specialist and single-sex services to meet particular needs. (Paragraph 168)

30.We do not believe that non-statutory guidance will be sufficient to bring the clarity needed in what is clearly a contentious area. We recommend that, in the absence of case law the EHRC develop, and the Secretary of State lay before Parliament, a dedicated Code of Practice, with case studies drawn from organisations providing services to survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. This Code must set out clearly, with worked examples and guidance, (a) how the Act allows separate services for men and women, or provision of services to only men or only women in certain circumstances, and (b) how and under what circumstances it allows those providing such services to choose how and if to provide them to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. (Paragraph 190)

Thanks for the links and quotes.

I assume it has come from the HR dept so I would need to email them. I can see me being labelled as a trouble maker/TERF quite quickly and am also doubtful I would get anywhere.

But many of these organisations that have been subject to policy capture are big enough to have their own legal departments. Surely some of their own lawyers have spelt out the law to those running the company? It’s such a controversial area that you would expect people to be absolutely sure of their ground before introducing what is effectively self-ID.

Do you still have access to the e learning - it may say who wrote or advised in the small print at the end.

What do your colleagues think? Would it be possible to put out a few quiet feelers? There might be lots of you feeling the same and you could approach HR as a group.

SleepyKat

Just tell them they need to implement the equality law properly, otherwise they can be open to being sued.

It might be worth reading the ehrc advice for employers. It isn't that helpful but it does make it clear that it is lawful for employers to exclude from single sex sleeping accommodation (p 20-21) and also includes the oh so clear statement:
'Once a transsexual person has acquired a gender recognition certificate, it is probably the case that they should be treated entirely as their acquired gender.' Which does in a round about way show that before a grc that's probably not the case.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/what-equality-law-means-you-employer-managing-workers

But loos is a bit different to dorms. At some point someone needs to bring a case of indirect sex discrimination on the grounds that the organisation could have provided a genuinely single sex service but chose not to. But I don't think loos will be it.

If the loos are labelled to indicate that are for males and females then they ARE making use of the single sex exemption.

The only case law I'm aware of around toilets is Croft v Royal Mail. It's from 2003 so pre-dates the EA and the GRA - but TRAs often cite it to prove ... something or other , so I assume it's still good.

Anyway, the appeal court judge ruled that Royal Mail had not discriminated against a tw employee by not allowing them to use the women's toilets during the early stages of transition.

www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fa2c94e0775e7ef4e3

But many of these organisations that have been subject to policy capture are big enough to have their own legal departments.

Is it feasible to assume that lawyers and firms of lawyers are not immune?

If a male person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is allowed into the women's changing room, could a male without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment claim discrimination because he is not allowed in the women's changing room? The male with the PC of gender reassignment is being treated differently from the male without that PC. This could be seen as less favourable treatment for the male without the PC. Does it work that way as well?

A person going through gender reassignment cannot be discriminated against on the grounds that they are going through gender reassignment. So for example, an employer cannot sack them beaus they need time off work for medical appointments.

That does not mean they have the right to access any spaces or services designed for women. Sex is a separate protected characteristic.

Use this example;
A man (whatever his gender presentation) cannot access a room intended for the use of women who are breastfeeding. Men never breastfeed or become pregnant. Excluding men from a breastfeeding room is not discrimination.

Well I found the feedback button for the e-learning and have left lengthy feedback. It’s all anonymous though so I won’t hear back about their views on my feedback.

Uk law: an employer can’t discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex. If nothing more was said, it would be against the law to have single sex workplace toilets- because the ‘excluded’ sex could claim discrimination. So there are specific exceptions set out in the Equality Act- these allow single sex toilets.

Also in the Equality Act: you can’t discriminate against someone on the basis that they are undertaking gender reassignment. This means an employer can’t treat a person undertaking gender reassignment less favourably than the employer would treat someone not undergoing gender reassignment. So the employer can’t say to a biological man who is transitioning to be a woman- sorry, you can’t go into the men’s toilets any more. (Because non-transitioning men are still being allowed into the men’s toilets.) This person can still be refused access to the women’s toilets: this does not constitute discrimination against them.

The situation is slightly more complex when the person has a GRC. But basically, yes, your HR department doesn’t know the law. Or is frightened.

I’d ask them whether they have taken legal advice from an employment lawyer on the effect of the Equality Act exemptions; and if not, why not? Also if they have assessed (in writing) the impact of this approach in terms of womens safety, dignity and privacy; who they took advice from in preparing this assessment, specifically if this included women’s representative organisations; and if they haven’t produced this assessment, why not?

If you say you are concerned that this will amount to indirect discrimination against women, in that they will be frightened to use the toilet, they can’t penalise you without running into a victimisation problem. (The indirect discrimination argument would be that work toilets are only made available to people who meet the requirement of being prepared to share with the opposite sex, and that levels of male on female violence and sexual abuse, and women’s biological needs re periods, mean that women will statistically find it more difficult to meet this requirement, so are not being provided with toilets, while men are.)

I mean, if they want to have a policy that men are allowed into the ladies, just for fun, to make the chaps feel good, that’s one thing, but dressing it up as a legal requirement is wrong.

Being in the protected category gender reassignment does not mean you can violate other protected categories rights. There are explicit examples listed where excluding the opposite sex is within the law.

There has been a fraudulent EA2010 document circulated for over a year now and many policies have been written based on it.
Most councils and businesses change their policies to comply with the actual EA2010 when the fraud is brought to their attention by the women who have been working tirelessly on this project.

There has been a fraudulent EA2010 document circulated for over a year now and many policies have been written based on it.

What! Where have companies and businesses been getting this document from? The actual EA2010 is on gov.uk. and I’m surprised that companies wouldn’t go straight to this. Although I shouldn’t be surprised!
Is there a way I can see this fraudulent document? One of the companies I work with is making noises about policy documents and it may be useful to be forewarned.

It is pretty basic. Th document substitutes gender identity for sex and gender reassignment in the list of protected categories.
Sometimes the fraud shows up on a web site and other times in employees handbooks.
When women first noticed it they provided the accurate copy of the EA2010 and a link to the law online to verify. As far as I know they were unable to find out where the fraudulent documents came from.
However they were inspired to begin looking at council's policies based on the EA and found the fraud to be widespread.
There has been discussion of the women's efforts on MN this past year.

So the other day I had training (US) for our title IX law (the one That requires funding for women’s sports and outlaws sex harassment in schools).

So as part of the training was this gem:

“Title IX now uses a much more expansive definition of sex than just male or female. Sex can include gender, gendered expression or gender identify and may be neither male nor female or both and includes transgender status.”

Arrrrrghhhjjjjhhsusufkdhwgwir

So basically sex = gender identity. Even after our genderbread training went to GREAT PAINs to assure us that nonono sex is totally different to gender and also gender has nothing to do with stereotypes...

How does any of this make sense to anyone.

I honestly do think some people’s brains just start to tune out when the diversity stuff starts. Just nodding along not really listening.

until its tested in court anyone can put around an opinion and claim it is the law

“Title IX now uses a much more expansive definition of sex than just male or female. Sex can include gender, gendered expression or gender identify and may be neither male nor female or both and includes transgender status.”

They're out of date. Obama sent a memo when he was president which changed Title IX to include gender identity:

www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-departments-education-and-justice-release-joint-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights-transgender-students

Trump changed it back to just mean sex:

www.spiked-online.com/2018/10/26/no-trump-is-not-erasing-trans-people/

In practice it's all a bit muddy because states and school districts can set their own rules. Kara Dansky spoke about this in January as part of the WNTT Washington event:

The Boyertown case Dansky talks about unfortunately failed at the Supreme Court in May. I don't know where this leaves wider interpretation of Title IX but it's certainly not as simple as your training programme made out FWRLurker.

edition.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-school-transgender-student-bathroom-policy/index.html

Selina Soule is citing Title IX in her case which challenges the decision to let male athletes compete against girls:

www.wsj.com/articles/a-connecticut-girl-challenges-male-domination-of-female-sports-11562885421

There has been a fraudulent EA2010 document circulated for over a year now and many policies have been written based on it.

I'm not sure it's a single fraudulent document - more like 'guidance' provided by several TRA orgs. Stonewall has been a major culprit from what I can gather but Mermaids, GIRES, Gendered Intelligence all plug the same bullshit.

Pencils but there has been a deliberate and coordinated campaign to replace "sex" with "gender" and sex reassignment with "gender identity" in the protected characteristics, not by changing the law itself, but by sending organisations and councils incorrect documents, then hoping with fingers crossed and magical unicorn horns waving, that the law will just follow, or no one will notice.