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?

Absolutely Qcng, I just don't think we should be looking for a single document behind it, I think a number of groups are involved.

Thank you. It was the idea of a single fraudulent document that surprised me. I was aware, from coming here, that the EA2010 was being “misinterpreted”. I have seen the protected characteristic of sex changed to gender on a public sector websites myself.

There is actually some cases we can refer to.
It's not as simple as the proprietor deciding to invoke exemptions.

This is one such case post EA2010.

www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

Kirklees Law Centre wins landmark transgender discrimination case
Friday, March 21st 2014

A transgender woman from Halifax today won her claim of transgender discrimination in the provision of goods and services against a pub which had refused to allow her to use the ladies lavatories and had barred her when she complained.

This is the first time that a case of transgender discrimination in the provision of goods and services has been heard in a British court. It highlights the need for businesses and other service providers to treat all of their customers fairly and equally, and demonstrates that there is legal protection for victims of discrimination.

Susan Brook, has lived as a woman for over 20 years and has undergone gender re-assignment surgery.

On 27th July 2012 she attended the New Inn on Heath Hill Road, Mount Tabor, Halifax. She went to the ladies toilets but was followed in by another lady who told her that she should not use the ladies toilets. She spoke to the landlord of the pub and explained what had happened but he refused to assist. He later barred her from the pub and confirmed that she should not use the ladies toilets and must use the gentleman’s toilets.

On Friday, 7th March 2014, the matter was heard before Judge Miller at Halifax County Court. He found that Susan had been discriminated against and had subsequently been victimised by the pub management. He issued a declaration of discrimination and awarded damages of £1,500.

It is unclear if this person had a GRC, and as it is not legal to request a GRC, and nobody can police or check this anyway, it looks very much as though legally, trans women have the full weight of the law behind them when using such spaces.

A few dodgy interpretations here and there notwithstanding.

There is more than one case. There is also the prison service case mentioned below where the relevant comparator for an MTF trans person without a GRC was defined as another biological male. As the EHRC guidelines were revised last year to state.

The law around pub toilets and workplace toilets is very different. Pubs are not even required to provide single sex toilets.

No, and also the discrimination element went further than just being told to use the men's toilets, they were barred from the pub.

Plus they had had sex reassignment surgery, which is likely to influence the judgement.

I know you’ve got off the original topic, but while you’re there talking about toilets can I ask something I’ve been wondering about for a while?

It’s about toilets in academic institutions. Often there are some single sex facilities for students and staff. Then there are single sex staff only facilities.
Are female members of staff legally able to object to male staff members in staff toilets but not in staff/student ones?

Sorry to butt in!

Here are the governement/DoE guidelines and IMO they leave some important things out. They do not say anything about boys or girls changing facilities, but do say that boys and girls over 8 should have segregated toilet facilities, except where the toilet facility is in a room, only to be used by one pupil at a time and can be secured from the inside.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410294/Advice_on_standards_for_school_premises.pdf

Here is a good article about toilets in schools from Womans Place UK and the different interpretation of the rules.

womansplaceuk.org/mixed-sex-toilets-ins-chools/

Yes, I’m aware of the awful dear colleague letter and also trumps reversal. I don’t actually agree with the language in either as the trump admin thing says that “gender” is defined by sex, whereas Obama’s says that sex may be defined by gender or gender expression. So both are wrong IMO.

And in any case, I live in a state which has its own laws which potentially allows gender ID to override sex. So far no CT women’s track level scandals but I’m sure they are coming.

I would give anything for us to have ANY political party to actually define sex as a separate thing from any flavor of gender and to use the “proportionate means / legitimate aim” language you guys have in your EA... of course as we see from this thread whatever the law is someone will try to skirt it somehow.

Some advice from WorkSmart regarding toilets in workplaces.

worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/where-you-work/toilets-and-washrooms/does-my-employer-have-provide-separate-male-and

Whether they had srs cannot influence legal judgements made under the equality act, as specified, the amount of 'meaningful' transition or none at all, is treated the same under the terms of the EA.

Also I have checked with official channels, there was no EHRC guidance updated last year that changed any limitations, exemptions or guidance regarding trans access to 'female spaces'.

There was quite a few fake EA 2010 accounts of a gender critical persuasion popping up on twitter trying to persuade people and business's of subscribing to illegal advice, or 'fake news' if you like, it seemed to take in some people searching for confirmation bias.

Trans people, possibly 100,000s are using the spaces that match their gender yesterday and stretching back, and will do tomorrow and beyond.

And if it was illegal, this simply wouldnt be the case.
So it is clearly not illegal, whether or not it inhabits some grey area of application is also mostly irrelevant, as nothing can be ruled on a blanket basis, and only a case-by-case.

Who decides case-by-case if someone wrongly enters a space?
Effectively, nobody. Occasionally you hear of somebody being thrown out, rarely, but importantly, you are far more likely to witness this event, than hear of an individual suffering personal harm because the Gender Re-assignment portion of the EA being abused.

Which as evidenced in the court case I linked, found it was illegal to discriminate a trans woman entering a female toilet. The Equality act explicitly does not require a GRC or Surgery.

You dont need to be able to tell the difference between good and bad legal advice in a situation such as this, occams razor will suffice.

Trans people are using these spaces now, under current conditions, and cause no harm.

Also its very important that to understand the legal advice, first you must understand that in practice, the equality act treats trans women as women.

So for single sex spaces, or when it is possible to separate males from females. Under this, trans women are female.

In single-sex provisions, trans women are covered as female via gender reassignment, and with a GRC, also have the protected characteristic of sex.

Single sex exemptions, like allowing male and female spaces to be separated intend trans women to among the female cohort.

Any guidance you may read for the workplace is always going to assume trans women are treated as female under EA provisions.

No doubt, there will be many that disagree, but this is exactly the current practice everywhere covered under the EA2010 in the uk.

The evidence is on almost every thread on this forum of people pushing back against this reality.

And it's a reality that works pretty much ok.

In your opinion making women only spaces mixed sex causes no harm; in reality allowing men to use women only spaces allows predatory men to also use women only spaces, and we can't challenge men for fear of being called a bigot.
It also stops many women from being able to use them at all.

There are countless examples of sexual assaults but you clearly don't care about the safety and privacy of women and girls.

This is the law, this is reality, it's nothing to do with me, I'm just stating how it is in practice.

Whether they had srs cannot influence legal judgements made under the equality act, as specified, the amount of 'meaningful' transition or none at all, is treated the same under the terms of the EA.

Except having SRS or a GRC is clearly going to influence a discrimination claim as it strengthens the claim.

Why do you think there are exemptions which specifically state that it can be proportionate to exclude MTFs? In what situations do you think they operate? You are misrepresenting the law as it is written, and ignoring the specific judgement in the prison service case that defines male non GRC holders who identify as women as male.

If your view was accurate, just saying "I identify as a woman" would be enough. But it seems it isn't?

Sex is a protected characteristic, and neither the Equality Act or a GRC entitles a trans person to use all and any single sex space or service.
There are permitted exceptions where sex is the primary consideration.
''Are there times when an employer is allowed to treat you less favourably because of your sex?
If an employer can show that you need to be a particular sex in order to do a certain job, they can insist on employing someone of that sex. This is known as an occupational requirement and does not count as discrimination.

An example of where it might be an occupational requirement to employ only women is for a job as a counsellor in a women's refuge. The employers would be able to argue that as their clients are all women who have experienced domestic violence by men, they would probably only want to talk to another woman about it.

In some circumstances, it may be possible for employers recruiting to a job in an organised religion to insist on only employing someone of a particular sex.

For example, it may be possible for the employers of a religious minister to argue that they can only employ a man in order to avoid offending the religious convictions of the religion's followers. They may also be able to argue that they can't employ a transsexual person or a gay man for the same reasons.''

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-sex-or-sexual-orientation/discrimination-because-of-sex/

I know there were threads here about the EHRC changing its wording in a set of guidelines, as some women here saw it as a Trojan horse and not entirely positive. Can I be arsed to go trawling for them... Anyone else remember what the thread was called? It was Oct 2018 as I remember people being pissed off that they prevaricated until the GRA consultation was virtually over.

ISTR they also took out the wording out about service providers not being able to tell an MTF trans person that they couldn't use the women's toilets.

An example of where it might be an occupational requirement to employ only women is for a job as a counsellor in a women's refuge. The employers would be able to argue that as their clients are all women who have experienced domestic violence by men, they would probably only want to talk to another woman about it.

Yes and the similar situation of rape counselling is specifically referenced in the notes to the EA as being an example of a reasonable use of the exemption.

Whether they had srs cannot influence legal judgements made under the equality act, as specified, the amount of 'meaningful' transition or none at all, is treated the same under the terms of the EA.

Also I have checked with official channels, there was no EHRC guidance updated last year that changed any limitations, exemptions or guidance regarding trans access to 'female spaces'.

Well that's strange because following a FOI request by Fair Play For Women, the wording of EHRC's document 'what equality law means for your business' was changed in quite a few places in October 2018.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/documents_related_to_change_in_e#incoming-1298678

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388551-Important-The-Equality-Act-guidance-has-just-changed

The sentence, Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes. was removed from a couple of places.

So perhaps you're mistakenly right about that bit but only since last October.

Relevant to the Susan Brook case, the guidance on page 46 was changed from:

A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person. Nor should the transsexual person be given a worse standard of service, for example, by allowing other customers to make hostile remarks or refusing them access to the toilets appropriate to the sex in which they present.

to:

A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person. Nor should the transsexual person be given a worse standard of service, for example, by allowing other customers to make hostile remarks.

Which is interesting.

nothing can be ruled on a blanket basis, and only a case-by-case

'Case-by-case' is not mentioned anywhere in the EA itself, only in EHRC's dodgy guidance. It was put there in response to pressure from TRA organisations. Case-by-case wants binning.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

You're contradicting yourself. How can you say Whether they had srs cannot influence legal judgements made under the equality act, as specified, the amount of 'meaningful' transition or none at all, is treated the same under the terms of the EA. while at the same time say things must be decided on a case-by-case basis? Doesn't make sense does it?

As you're so down with the 'official channels' you'll be aware that the Women & Equalities Committee were unimpressed with the lack of clarity in EHRC guidance in this area and have recommended that new statutory code is written and brought to parliament:

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.

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

Yes Pencils posted the thread I was looking for.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388551-Important-The-Equality-Act-guidance-has-just-changed

There is also this Twitter thread summarising the changes:

https://twitter.com/onlyobjectivity/status/1049340702507913216?s=21

So it appears your "official source", as I thought, was mistaken, freethegenders

Please give your organisation a copy of this briefing document by Louise Whitfield: https://www.equallyours.org.uk/deighton-pierce-glynn-briefing-on-how-legislation-protects-women-only-spaces-and-services/

It sets out the legislation very clearly. Women are allowed single sex spaces. People telling you that we aren't are deliberately misinterpreting the EA.

Yes, as I said there has been no updates on guidance that changes any mechanism that has been in place since 2010. Much less a change of law, so things will continue more or less as they have done since 2010.

The law that a blanket ban is unlawful, and must take place on a case-by-case basis, is still inline with no GRC or SRS required to be covered in the first place.

The requirements to be covered in the first place by gender re-assignment P.C. is irrelevant to triggering exemptions, and can not be triggered on lack of GRC or SRS alone, there must be a deeper reasoning, neither will discomfort meet that criteria.

As far as the guidance being a grey area as suggested by women and equalities, I already covered this when I said above, it is almost entirely unenforceable, and unless something that is legal now, becomes explicitly against the law, the discussion is almost entirely a thought exercise with no practical application.

As such, there has been virtually no problems with the current system, the idea there is any kind of legal justification or mandate to roll back equality laws and stipulate obstacles trans women must pass to enter these spaces, and then to pay for some sort of policing at the point of entrance of every such space, is fantasy.