Government advice on single-sex spaces.

[InspiralCoalescenceRingdown]

Here's what I don't understand about the advice coming from the govt., GEO, etc., in regards to single-sex spaces and transgender people accessing them.

Let's say a service provider has a single-sex provision for women. That service provider allows transwomen (for simplicity, transwomen without GRCs) to access that service.

What happens if a man requests access to the service?

This is why ann simcrofts (sp) case is so important

Sinnott

My understanding is that any service provider can deny service to a trans gender person if (there is a specific phrase I can't remember) but basically if it impinges on the single sex users (as in the women if it's a women's service and men if it's a mens).

So if for example a trans woman is causing no problem and is legitimately/in good faith accessing a service then the provider can allow that. If a trans woman accessed a service and was being creepy/insincere in their motivation by being there then they have every right to remove them.

So we have to admit the men and wait for them to be a nuisance before we can tell them to leave, we can't just say no men.

@CloudyVanilla

My understanding is that any service provider can deny service to a trans gender person if (there is a specific phrase I can't remember) but basically if it impinges on the single sex users (as in the women if it's a women's service and men if it's a mens).

So if for example a trans woman is causing no problem and is legitimately/in good faith accessing a service then the provider can allow that. If a trans woman accessed a service and was being creepy/insincere in their motivation by being there then they have every right to remove them.

The male bodied person who identifies as trans doesn’t have to cause any bother to be refused entry. If it negatively impacts on the women to have someone who is not the same sex in that area, then they can be refused. If women need a single sex space because they feel distressed, frightened or simply uncomfortable with someone born male their, that’s enough reason. The problem is that mermaids and the likes have consistently lied about the act and instead of checking the details, places like sports centres, hospitals, women’s shelters have just ignored women’s rights and centred the ‘feelings’ of those born males who identify as trans.

But if a non-trans-identifying male requests access, and the service provider has already allowed trans-identifying males to access the service, then wouldn't it legally count as discrimination on the basis of sex if the non-trans-identifying male was prevented from accessing it?

their = there

This breaks it down well

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

But yes Ann sinnots case is going to focus minds on this

@ClosetGC

But if a non-trans-identifying male requests access, and the service provider has already allowed trans-identifying males to access the service, then wouldn't it legally count as discrimination on the basis of sex if the non-trans-identifying male was prevented from accessing it?

Unfortunately not, as the law only allows the rights of male bodied people who identify as trans, access to those areas, IF it doesn’t impact on women. It basically means that the regulations that permit extra rights for male bodied people who identify as trans clashes with the regulations put in place to protect women, but organisations are centring the wants of those born male, over the rights of women. So, when the TRAs are bleating on about losing rights, what they’re actually demanding EXTRA rights, over women and men. I’m talking about male bodied people who identify as trans specifically, because it’s women’s rights to feelings of dignity, privacy and safety that I’m concerned about. Men can fight their own battles to single sex spaces, if they feel that their rights to feelings of dignity, privacy and safety is being threatened by those female bodied people who identify as trans.

the law only allows the rights of male bodied people who identify as trans, access to those areas

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the UK Equality Act have absolutely no mention of gender identity? Trans women who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment maybe what you mean?

I also don’t know about the being a nuisance thing. As I understand it, trans women Who are undergoing gender reassignment can Be excluded as a group OR individually as long as it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

@DeliciouslyFemale that's good then. To the pp as well, I didn't say it was necessarily a positive thing, just that that was my understanding of the law.

Apparently gender reassignment is an umbrella term for some reason. To me it sounds specific but according to equality human rights it is not limited to medical transition.

It is still stated that in limited circumstances that trans people can be excluded. So I assume "limited circumstances" would cover things like shelters, women's abuse support groups etc. Whether providers are choosing to take this up is a different matter, but they do have the legal remit to keep single sex spaces genuinlet single sex.

Recent case law means that non-binary and gender fluid may come under gender reassignment as in this case. My work have now broadened gender reassignment to include these under the guise of the Equality Act.
www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/gender-fluid-non-binary-workers-protected-under-equality-act-landmark-ruling-shows

What about part timers who are only transgender for half the week?

I think the non-binary inclusion (and all the others) will eventually work in favour of women. It is very clear that if you have to make a decision about changing facilities, loos, refuges etc and you are faced with clearly defined biological males who are stating they are non-binary and asking for the same rights as MtF trans people, you would have to exclude all. A GRC would need to be produced and trans people do not want to do that. The bigger the mess, the better it will work for us.

I would think that the man would have good grounds for a discrimination case as the comparator for a man without a GRC is a man.

This is what I originally suspected, but having gawked at the Equality Act for a bit with my inexpert eye, I'm not sure that's the case. Some protected characteristics apply to all (e.g. sex, religion), but some don't (e.g. gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership).

What about part timers who are only transgender for half the week?

They come under "non binary and gender fluid".

@Kit19

Thanks for that link, very informative.

This is what I originally suspected, but having gawked at the Equality Act for a bit with my inexpert eye, I'm not sure that's the case. Some protected characteristics apply to all (e.g. sex, religion), but some don't (e.g. gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership).

That's not entirely the point. If you use a single sex exemption to exclude the other sex it should theoretically be only available to members of that legal sex as defined in EA, "a female of any age". MTFs without GRC are legally male. So if you make it open to some males but not others, it may discriminate against them, especially if it is a job opportunity, AWS etc.

OP, there are exemptions written into the equality act for single sex spaces. Like sport, prison, rape refuges, etc. Specific examples.

It's about fairness. You are allowed to discriminate under certain circumstances. But you must make sure it's a 'proportional means to a legitimate aim'.

Eg changing rooms. If the women object to males, then they can be excluded. It might not be fair to make transwomen use the men's - but providing a third space is seen as a 'proportionate means' and not making the women and girls uncomfortable is the 'legitimate aim'.

But lobby groups have made service providers think it isn't.

Anne Sinnot's case is about making the EHRC clarify the law correctly and fairly. And to let service providers know that it's perfectly legitimate to provide sex segregated spaces and they must not be targeted as a result.

And yes, a transwoman without a GRC is legally male. There would be a case for discrimination against other men to exclude them but include the transwoman.

The equality act was written to ensure fairness for certain vulnerable groups. Anyone who interprets it to mean rapists in women's prisons, men competing against women in sport or rape victims having to share spaces with males, is wrong. And may need the concept of fairness explained again.

I'm confused. I thought you were only legally the opposite sex if you had a GRC? I know all other documents can be changed without a GRC, but you have to have a GRC to change your birth certificate?

@FemaleAndLearning

Recent case law means that non-binary and gender fluid may come under gender reassignment as in this case. My work have now broadened gender reassignment to include these under the guise of the Equality Act. www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/gender-fluid-non-binary-workers-protected-under-equality-act-landmark-ruling-shows

What about part timers who are only transgender for half the week?

Only certain courts create case law and I don't think this one qualifies.

Only certain courts create case law and I don't think this one qualifies.

Yes, I don't think this is a precedent setting judgement. I think it is quite dishonest as the claimant I would have thought would be considered an MTF trans person (or discriminated against as such) and protected under gender reassignment without invoking the gender fluid nonsense. This person appears to use Ms and female pronouns.

@CloudyVanilla

My understanding is that any service provider can deny service to a trans gender person if (there is a specific phrase I can't remember) but basically if it impinges on the single sex users (as in the women if it's a women's service and men if it's a mens).

So if for example a trans woman is causing no problem and is legitimately/in good faith accessing a service then the provider can allow that. If a trans woman accessed a service and was being creepy/insincere in their motivation by being there then they have every right to remove them.

If ANYONE accessed a service and was being creepy/insincere in their motivation by being there then they have every right to remove them.

Same if they were intoxicated or abusive.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the UK Equality Act have absolutely no mention of gender identity? Trans women who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment maybe what you mean?

You’re absolutely correct. It is gender reassignment. Sorry, I should have made that clear.