is this actually correct legally?

[bagelbaby]

From Girlguiding site: ( i was interested to see what they actually say as i'm a current volunteer)

"One of these nine protected characteristics is sex (whether you are male or female) and another is gender reassignment, which in loose terms equates to being trans.

Gender reassignment is a self-identified characteristic– there is no need for anyone else to ‘confirm’ someone is trans, or for the trans person to have started any kind of physical or other transition attributed to sex, such as clothing. There is also no need for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) for those over age 18."

Yes, that’s right

Gender reassignment is protected in equalities law yes.

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

The issue with the GG is they are allowed to be single sex as a charity as they have exercised the right to do that due to the specific issues for girls in society.

They now operate as single gender not sex. Which breaks that exemption. They also discriminate against both boys and girls who are not the 'right' gender.

So they are mixed sex even though they aren't supposed to be, and they let done girls and some boys join but not others which is sex discrimination.

To have the benefit of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment you just have to say that you are transitioning, or even just that you are thinking of transitioning. You then are protected from being discriminated against because you made that declaration.

You are also protected if someone discriminates against you because they think you might/are transitioning, even if you have no thoughts in that direction.

I wasn't au fait with these issues when this was all unfolding. Can anyone summarise how the hell they got away, and continue to do so, or direct me to the best thread(s) to read up about it?

Thank you

Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic gives you the right not to be discriminated against compared to someone without this characteristic. So a transwoman must not be treated differently to other men.

On the point about gender reassignment as a self-identified characteristic, section 7 of the Equality Act 2020 says "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

2010, sorry for typo

There are many threads here about Girl Guides and what happened to Helen Watts. I should think R0wantrees might be along with helpful links at some point.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3373458-girlguiding-expels-leaders-who-question-trans-policy

A google search using these terms should bring up some threads that will give you the backstory.

site:mumsnet.com helen watts girl guides

In the case of Girl Guides (a single sex organisation), this should mean that female volunteers, Rainbows, Brownies and Guides who identify as 'trans' and therefore have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are not unfairly discriminated against within the organisation.
Unfortunately, GG were advised that it meant male volunteers and boys should be treated as if they were female.

Helen Watts, 'Girlguiding campfires crafts and compelled belief'

8th July 2020

womansplaceuk.org/2020/07/08/girlguiding-campfires-crafts-compelled-belief/

A year ago I was removed from Girlguiding
Katie Alcock
Sep 30, 2019
(extract)
What was I concerned about? Girlguiding is allowed to be a single sex organisation under the Equality Act 2010. Sex is a biological characteristic; you can’t change your sex, no matter how many operations you have. Some adults legally “change sex”, but children can’t do this. All boys, even if they identify as girls, are legally and biologically males. But Girlguiding had said that these boys could join Guides yet girls who identify as boys (biologically female) had to leave. They had told a number of us that Guiding was a “single gender” organisation, which is a legal nonsense. My Facebook post was about that message — I said I thought it was “legally shaky”.
Based on that one post, Guiding paid a professional employment investigator to “investigate” me. This “investigation” was in itself really stressful but at the end of it, I said that I didn’t think this one post (seen by 9 people) was really “public” and that I’d be happy to follow all Girlguiding rules that didn’t clash with safeguarding.
I had (still have) concerns about safeguarding because of the culture of secrecy around trans children in Guiding. It is both explicit and implicit — we were explicitly told we could not reveal that a child was trans — so we can’t tell a parent that a girl who identifies as a boy is going to meet someone she’s been contacting online. We can’t tell a foster carer whose cared-for girl can never share accommodation with a boy due to an abuse background, that there’s a boy who identifies as a girl coming on camp, even if we don’t give any names. And abusers can use this secrecy against a child. “Don’t tell anyone what I did to you or I’ll tell them all you are trans.” (continues)
medium.com/4th-wave-feminism/a-year-ago-i-was-removed-from-girlguiding-d72f0e9f9692

Katie Alcock has a case in progress against Girl Guiding for, "being expelled because of her gender critical beliefs"

"I have not sought out this conflict with Girlguiding. I feel that I have applied Girlguiding principles: the Guide promise - which I have recited in Girlguiding meetings hundreds of times – is:

"I promise that I will do my best, to be true to myself and develop my beliefs, to serve the Queen and my community, to help other people and to keep the Guide Law."

That is precisely what I have done throughout this conflict, and what I am doing in bringing this claim."

Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic gives you the right not to be discriminated against compared to someone without this characteristic. So a transwoman must not be treated differently to other men.

Repeating this because it's important. Men who say they're trans can't be discriminated against. Eg, you can't fire them for being trans, or refuse them service because they're trans.

But you don't have to treat them as if they were women.

If they do actually have a GRC, then that imposes some "treat them as if they were women", at least on the state, via the GRA2004. But without that, the EA2010 just offers the basic anti-discrimination thing. It no more says you have to treat them as women than treat disabled men or religious men as women.

But also note that the EA2010 is asymmetrical on "gender reassignment". You are allowed to discriminate against someone without the characteristic as much as you want. Not sure how intentional that was.

Repeating this because it's important. Men who say they're trans can't be discriminated against. Eg, you can't fire them for being trans, or refuse them service because they're trans.

And in the context of GG, girls who say they're trans ('transboys') should not be discriminated against. What I've read in the past implies GG does - it welcomes 'transgirls' despite being supposed to be a single sex org, but doesn't welcome 'transgirls'.

By comparison, afaik single sex schools still by and large obey the law - remain single sex and don't discriminate against their pupils who wish to reassign their gender.

Thanks for the info Embarrassing and R0

Thanks for the clarity.
I was aware that gender reassignment was a protected characteristic- it was just that I couldn't believe it could be simply self identified without question

Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

I suspect the lawmakers weren't considering "self ID" exactly

But the "proposing to" and "other attributes of" leave an awful lot of wiggle room.

But all it's granting is anti-discrimination protection. Not legal status as the opposite sex. This is the Equality Act, not the Gender Recognition Act.

But all it's granting is anti-discrimination protection. Not legal status as the opposite sex. This is the Equality Act, not the Gender Recognition Act.

Tbh they probably should have simply framed it as protection against discrimination for being gender nonconforming in any way, whether the person has self-identified or not.
I thought the other protections were based on perceptions (eg someone discriminated against because someone wrongly thought they belonged to a certain religion or sexuality would still be a victim of religious or sexuality discrimination).

@Tibtom

Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic gives you the right not to be discriminated against compared to someone without this characteristic. So a transwoman must not be treated differently to other men.

And another repeat for this.

This is what the law actually says! Easily avilable and has a lot of easily undertsandable explanations - including the one above.

What it does NOT say is that transwomen have to be treated as though they are female! Though that is what so very many organisations, like GGs, have been told and have implemented.

Tbh they probably should have simply framed it as protection against discrimination for being gender nonconforming in any way, whether the person has self-identified or not.

To some extent that's covered by sex discrimination. You can't discriminate against someone for doing something you accept from a member of the opposite sex. I think that actually offers trans people more protection than the "gender reassignment" bit.

Although that leaves people whose special gender requires them to wear full-face blue makeup and head sparkles unprotected...

Ann Sinnot's case against EHRC starts today. Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA) is seeking Judicial Review of EHRC. The claim being that, "Official sources provide unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act"

"This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC and will also rule on our request for a costs cap (to protect AEA) should the case go forward"
Twitter: twitter.com/AnnMSinnott/status/1389998712861171714

Website: aealliance.co.uk/