No surprise but just today 3 examples of misrepresentation of the EA: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Vice, Labour List

[stumbledin]

I suppose the other 2 aren't a surprise but it would be good to think JRF would know / understand the EA.

We are committed to creating opportunities for under-represented groups. BAME groups and those with a disability are under-represented in the organisation and are positively encouraged to apply. We shall apply Section 159 of the Equalities Act 2010 in the recruitment process.

At JRF/JRHT we believe in being inclusive and giving everyone an equal chance to succeed. Applications are welcome from all regardless of age, gender identity, disability, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, religion or belief, race, sexual orientation, transgender status or social economic background.
jobs.personneltoday.com/job/1401616016/deputy-director-people/

It is also unclear how safeguarding single-sex spaces will work, given that the Equality Act 2010 already states that organisations such as women's refuges must be trans-inclusive.
www.vice.com/en_uk/article/k7qbxv/gender-recognition-act-trans-rights-legislation

Equality law covers gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. As a result, trans men are entitled to access the same facilities and services as other men and trans women are entitled to access the same facilities and services as other women.
labourlist.org/2020/06/its-time-for-labour-to-stand-with-trans-people-for-dignity-and-equality/

So trans people get two protected characteristics and women none?

Disappointed in the Rowntree foundation

Have you asked them to explain , with a copy of relevant paragraphs . Perhaps say you are surprised that they are not consistent with the equality act and assume that a mistake has been made following some strong campaigning by political groups ?

Really disappointed (but not surprised) by JRF - according to their website they've been Stonewalled. I've emailed to ask them to clarify their list of protected characteristics and how they produce data for gender pay gap reporting purposes. I've had enough of this shit.

re cotacting the JRF - you are probably right but it just came up on a feed and I thought unbelievable. And not only should they know the law but the web site which is for advertising jobs should also know.

I was half hoping their name on Mumsnet might make someone think about it!!

And now we have Reuters spreading disinformation. Which is another disappointment as the Reuters Thomson Foundation thinks it is a big fish in terms of promoting women's issues in the media.

" ... Supporters of trans rights emphasise that trans women are women. Britain’s 2010 Equality Act protects trans people from discrimination in accessing single-sex spaces.

The law does provide for exclusions in exceptional circumstances, such as if a group counselling female victims of sexual assault judged that other clients would not attend the session if a trans woman was there.

A 2019 parliamentary inquiry found no evidence of this provision ever being used.

uk.reuters.com/article/britain-lgbt-rowling/explainer-j-k-rowling-and-trans-women-in-single-sex-spaces-whats-the-furore-idUKL8N2DO2SG

Would love to be able to get Fact Checker to find out if that astonishing statement that no Refuge or Rape Crisis service has every wanted to use the provision under the EA for single sex service.

The job is advertised on their own website with the exact same information - I checked in case it was a misinterpretation by the website posting the vacancy.

Ok hang on. Does the EA protect biological women's spaces or not? Or can any man say he is a woman and access them and be on the right side of the law? Does it only protect gender? Because shops like m and s seem to think so. Or are they breaking the law allowing people to use the changing room they are most comfortable with?

Sorry. I feel I should know this but I can't see m and s knowingly breaking the law. (I'm not obsessed with marks by the way just an example )

If i see a man in a women's toilet I want to be able to challenge him ( or at least the establishment that the toilet is in!)

The EA protects women only spaces and services, they are an exception made to anti discrimination laws to allow women to participate in society.
Even a person with a GRC does not get the automatic right to access.

@Inebriati thank-you.

So why can transwomen access women's changing rooms then? Is this not the shop breaking the law? Sorry to bang on about it.

Or have they sneakily equated sex with gender and got around it that way?

In unlegal language where there is deemed to be a need, as in women's refuges or rape crisis, single sex spaces are justified. This is what Liz Truss said would continue to be true.

Toilets are a bit different and i suspect many local councils would probably not want to apply the single sex exemption.

Not sure if the leaked comment re the GRA was imply that toilets would be included in the protection of the existing provision for single sex provision.

Have now email JRF, but done in haste so just gave them a link to the section they mentioned and pointed out their list wasn't complete - or did they not want women to apply?!

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

"The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

age;

disability;

gender reassignment;

marriage and civil partnership;

pregnancy and maternity;

race;

religion or belief;

sex;

sexual orientation. 

A fraudulent list was circulated by transgender advocates over a year ago and many councils and organizations have included the fraud in their policy.
Women have been notifying these fraud victims and providing the accurate information whenever they are alerted to another incident.
So thank you for noticing and please email or write to them to advise them they have been the victim of a fraud and include a copy and a link to the EA2010.