Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Ann Sinnott of Authentic Equity Alliance vs EHRC Judicial Review of incorrect Equality Act guidance

826 replies

R0wantrees · 06/05/2021 09:45

The presiding judge decided that this should go straight to a 1-day oral Permissions Hearing.

This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC and will also rule on request for a costs cap (to protect AEA) should the case go forward.

AEA about the case,
"Official sources provide unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act!
Yes, you read that right! It's shocking, isn't it?

For nearly 10 years, unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act (EA2010) has been displayed on the website of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and on the Government Equalities Office (GEO) website for 5 years.

Over these ten years, the guidance has been widely accessed and further disseminated by countless organisations of all types. As a result, the unlawful guidance is reflected in the equality policies of organisations and institutions throughout the UK.

EHRC and GEO guidance is in breach of EA2010, Schedule 3, Sections 26, 27 and 28

This is a legal case to ensure that EA2010 guidance accurately reflects the Act.

The Complainant is Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA), a Community Interest Company established to promote and further the interests of women and girls."
Website: aealliance.co.uk/

Ann Sinnott (founder/director) twitter.com/AnnMSinnott

Twitter live tweeting of case via #AEAvEHRC and #IStandWithAnnSinnott

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Unsure33 · 06/05/2021 22:00

I am even more confused now .

littlbrowndog · 06/05/2021 22:02

@Unsure33

I don’t agree that this is just because the judge is a man . There are some very good female judges who may have interpreted the law in the same way because perhaps it is ambiguous , badly written and perhaps not clear at all . These cases have all shown that change is needed to stop misinterpretation.

Also I don’t agree that all men are the same , personally I think there are lot of men ( as well women) who don’t realise about these cases or implications . If they did know they would be concerned for their wives and daughters and would also fund appeals or get involved in campaigning.

If only they knew

They dont as it has been hidden

Most people don’t know this

Hiding in shadows.

Who hides in the shadows ?

Swimminglanes · 06/05/2021 22:07

@Unsure33

I am even more confused now .
You don't need to be.

Simply put, Ann went to a JR saying it appears the statutory guidance says the default is male access if he so desires.

The judge said, no, that is not the case. The exceptions are legal. Male access is not the default.

People seem to have absorbed the idea that gender identity is a legal override. It isn't, and never has been.

Exceptions were put into the Equality Act TO BE USED. If men could be women for all purposes they would not be there.

No amount of blagging about the exceptions being unusable makes a any difference to the law.

RobinMoiraWhite · 06/05/2021 22:12

@RichardGadsden

I think one of the confusions here is that people think that these exemptions in the Equality Act are for service users (ie people).

They aren't. They're for service providers (ie businesses or local councils or the NHS or whatever).

If a service provider decides to make all provision unisex, then the only thing you have the right to do under the Equality Act is not go there.

You might have rights under another Act, of course - for instance the NHS Acts entitle you to single-sex wards under some circumstances. But you can't complain under the Equality Act that someone is not discriminating.

There are no circumstances where the Equality Act requires anyone to make a single-sex or sex-segregated provision. They are allowed to under a list of exemptions (11 of them), but there is no requirement on them to do so and they can choose not to. Yes, that means that your local council could declare that the changing rooms in the gym or the swimming baths are all unisex!

There might be an argument that a public-sector organisation could be obliged under the public sector equality duty to segregate provision in some circumstances - but that could only apply to a public-sector organisation (so a private gym operating unisex changing rooms would be completely within its rights to do so).

On top of the single-sex and sex-segregation exemptions, there's an exemption to the general rule that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment. That can be used by, for example, rape crisis centres. They are, again, not obliged to used it, but they can if they want to. Once again, the service users, (ie the general public), have no right to services that discriminate; the service provider can if they want to, but can choose not to if they don't want to.

What this case is all about is, when an organisation is using a single-sex or sex-segregated exemption and is not using the gender reassignment exemption, what happens to transsexual people who don't have a GRC?

Transsexual people who do have a GRC are of the acquired gender, ie are (legally) of the sex they say they are, so a sex-discrimination exemption can't exclude them. So, given that you have to let a transsexual woman in with a GRC, and that you aren't allowed to ask whether they have a GRC or not, and that there's no way to tell a transsexual woman with a GRC from a transsexual woman without a GRC other than by the GRC, is it gender reassignment discrimination to exclude a transsexual woman without a GRC from a women-only space when you are not using the gender reassignment exemption? And the answer was "yes".

The gender reassignment exemption is unaffected (that lets you keep out transsexual people with a GRC, so you can definitely also keep out transsexual people without one). So spaces only for non-transsexual women are completely legal - but only if you can justify the narrower gender reassignment exemption and not the broader sex exemption.

But note that this doesn't give the right to discriminate to women. It gives the right to service providers. No-one has the right to a single-sex space. No-one ever did under the Equality Act. That's not how that law works. People providing spaces are allowed to provide single-sex ones under some circumstances, but are not obliged to do so; they can elect to provide fully unisex spaces if they prefer (again, they might be required under other laws, this is just the EA).

If you want to have the right as an individual to a single-sex space, then the Equality Act is the wrong law to look at. I think you'd need legislation to create that right so you can sue a service provider for not segregating. At the moment, you can only sue them for segregating.

Refreshing to read a clear piece by someon who understands the legal structure.

'Womens' sex-based rights' is a mantra which does not reflect the legislation. Chanting it will not make it law.

Swimminglanes · 06/05/2021 22:13

We are being called pig ignorant.

Christine Burns MBE MermaidTransgender flagRainbow flagBooks⧖
@christineburns
Worth remembering that FOUR years ago FPW and the rest had to have it explained to them by trans people that the GRA had nothing to do with same sex spaces — that THAT was covered by EA2010, so they switched from pig ignorance about one law to pig ignorance about another.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/05/2021 22:13

I think one of the confusions here is that people think that these exemptions in the Equality Act are for service users (ie people).

Some people do. Many FWR regulars know this law and what it does and doesn't say inside out so don't need to be patronised about it.

There is also the need for all service providers to not create a hostile environment for women and girls, and a hostile environment of sexual harassment by being forced to share a single sex space with cross dressing males for the reason of a sexual fetish (under the trans umbrella and in the Stonewall definition) may meet that test.

Swimminglanes · 06/05/2021 22:15

'Womens' sex-based rights' is a mantra which does not reflect the legislation. Chanting it will not make it law.

Ditto

Trans women are women

MinervaBoudicca · 06/05/2021 22:15

@Unsure33

If we are talking about prisons can I just ask a stupid question 🙋‍♀️ can a transman chose which prison they go to or would they automatically if they have a GRC or even if they self ID go to a mans prison ?

And as I am early to all this discussion I did not realise you could get a GRC without surgical intervention .

It’s a minefield .

Not a stupid question re prisons at all: I think it’s done on a case by case basis now: but others will know better than me..
Swimminglanes · 06/05/2021 22:16

Christine has called us pig ignorant Robin, are you going to second that?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/05/2021 22:17

Worth remembering that FOUR years ago FPW and the rest had to have it explained to them by trans people that the GRA had nothing to do with same sex spaces — that THAT was covered by EA2010, so they switched from pig ignorance about one law to pig ignorance about another.

As I linked upthread, the EHRC themselves stated FOUR years ago that people with a GRC and without one are treated differently for the purposes of the sex protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010.

thepuredrop · 06/05/2021 22:17

So we have to persuade SPs that they can invoke sex-based exception on the grounds that a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a male AND GR-based exception on the grounds that it infringes the privacy and decency of women.
For example, the NHS is mandated to be single-sex in most in-patient areas (excepting emergency/critical care) but has not invoked the GR-based exception. It views a curtain around the bed area as sufficient protection of dignity and decency. This is the place to start a challenge, then?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/05/2021 22:21

As I linked upthread, the EHRC themselves stated FOUR years ago

Sorry it was actually THREE years ago

Swimminglanes · 06/05/2021 22:29

So no reaction to women being pig ignorant then Robin?

OldCrone · 06/05/2021 22:34

Refreshing to read a clear piece by someon who understands the legal structure.

As many of us do.

People providing spaces are allowed to provide single-sex ones under some circumstances

And when such single sex spaces are for women, they can legally exclude all males, including those who self identify as women, and even males with GRCs. It is legal to do so.

CardinalLolzy · 06/05/2021 22:40

Let's not encourage goading.
I agree it is confusing particularly with so many different interpretations flying around and the lack of the actual judgement or a transcript.
Despite my earlier posts and disappointment I'm trying not to jump to any conclusions at the moment.

ifIwerenotanandroid · 06/05/2021 22:40

How does the protected characteristic of religion/belief fit into the issue of single-sex provision & exclusion? It doesn't seem to have been mentioned.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 06/05/2021 22:43

Some service providers will be bound by their own constitutional documents/charitable objects to provide single sex services and in that case the exceptions do protect sex based rights.

Swimminglanes · 06/05/2021 22:44

I don't think asking someone who professes to know the law if they wish to agree with someone awarded an MBE for contributing to the law in discussion calling the women affected by the law pig ignorant is off limits here.

This is what they think of us.

ifIwerenotanandroid · 06/05/2021 22:45

I meant in terms of religious beliefs which mean some women can't take their full place in society without single-sex facilities.

thepuredrop · 06/05/2021 22:49

@ifIwerenotanandroid

I meant in terms of religious beliefs which mean some women can't take their full place in society without single-sex facilities.
I think that might qualify as indirect discrimination. The judge said he might have considered differently, were there evidence of women and girls being disadvantaged. This might be one such example.
NiceGerbil · 06/05/2021 22:52

The way I see it is.

For facilities in private businesses it's cost effective to go mixed sex. They can save on space and use that space for more lucrative things. EG a club can bung a couple of extra cubicles in the ladies, make it unisex and knock through the gents into more dancing/ drinking / whatever space.

The issues I see are men not being used to waiting to piss and when drunk will piss God knows where instead. I know at least s couple of blokes who've peed in the sink instead of the urinal for eg. Also no way of escaping a persistent creepy guy etc.

But, money. And young women will still want to go out. I've been in clubs where the doors gradually got damaged into 2 out of 3 had no door. You got s mate to stand in front/ hoped for the best! We still went.

Ditto festivals they're full of God. Shit, condoms, etc etc and women still go.

Then you have local authority stuff - sports centres, libraries, etc. Again. Saves space, less money to clean one set. The women who don't like it will just stop using them.

Changing rooms with useless curtains. Take it home to try on.

Prisons. Already done. Continues to be done. Questions are passed from one dept to another. General society attitude to prior in prison not sympathetic. The warnings from multiple prison officers, ex governors etc etc ignored.

Things like refuges while set up as fully funding themselves now mainly bid for contacts etc from local authorities etc. To get them they have to meet certain conditions. Including who they are for. At least two women's ones been there for decades lost funding as did but cater to men. Not anything to do with trans people- just men.

Sports- up to their governing bodies. Amateur, up to the organisers.

Schools...?

Sports clubs with communal changing - swimming/ gymnastics etc. In schools at weekends etc. ???. People aged about 5- 50 getting changed.

I am not sure what's going to happen. For some things it will be women stop going/ go in pairs (as many have done in pubs and clubs for years). For some things the women will put up with it as they want to do the thing.
The areas where women/ girls have no choice but to attend-
School
Hospital
In patient MH facilities
Young offenders institutes
Women/ girls who need intimate care because of age/ disability
That sort of thing

The women/ girls have no choice. In plenty of circs they also have no voice.

I am not sure what happens next.

I cannot understand why society is pressing for these to be gender not sexed based and on a self ID basis (which is the aim and what has happened a lot already).

RUOKHon · 06/05/2021 22:52

This Judge has stated that the 'bar' for a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, in this circumstance, is the privacy of the female sex and the provision of decency for the female sex.
So, any male or transperson who violates the privacy boundary of any member of the female sex in any circumstance is declared by existing law to be indecent.
The use of the word 'decency' is no accident given the sexual offence of 'indecent exposure'.
Effectively, this Judge seems to be saying that, given the terms of the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, males of any description [with or without a GRC], should stay out of women's spaces and services or risk criminal proceedings for indecency at the very least

Interesting. How does this square with the appointment of a transwoman as CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland I wonder?

R0wantrees · 06/05/2021 22:54

Christine Burns opinion piece for Pink News:
'How 2018 became the year of trans persecution'

(extract)
"As part of PinkNews’ year-end review of 2018, activist Christine Burns MBE reflects on the unprecedented hostility towards trans people in the last 12 months. (continues)

Groups that nobody had ever heard of before suddenly emerged, with glossy websites registered in the US, claiming to represent mainstream women’s interests. Questions have been raised about some of their funding. The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

And those leaders found a ready ear in some of Britain’s right-leaning press — so much so that there was barely a Sunday in 2018 when the Sunday Times (and sometimes the Mail) was not running story after story hostile to trans people, with no effective right of reply. “We’re being silenced,” cried the people silencing trans people. This peaked as first Scotland and then Westminster conducted public consultations on how to improve the GRA.

Everything else is just detail. 2018 has been defined by a campaign against trans people and anyone identified as a possible ally. Everyone agrees it is unprecedentedly toxic but, just as Donald Trump pretended after Charlottesville, this is not an issue where ‘both sides’ can be considered equivalent." (continues)

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/12/21/trans-persecution-2018-christine-burns/

OP posts:
NiceGerbil · 06/05/2021 22:55

The other thing about going mixed sex for loads of things is that surely it doesn't serve anyone?

Women have no distance/ privacy from men when doing things that always used to be single sex, for reasons of privacy and safety and comfort.

Trans women say that the things for men are dangerous but they're in with the men as well.
The men don't like it as lots of them don't want women around when they're doing things that used to be single sex.

So where's the win?

thepuredrop · 06/05/2021 22:56

Yay Mumsnet!
But Magdalen Burns and Maya Forstater woke me up.

Swipe left for the next trending thread