What right to a single sex space do I have and how?

[Avocadowoman]

I saw a comment on another thread and it got me thinking. The comment was (broadly):

'A woman's right to a single sex space cannot co-exist with a transwoman's right to enter a woman's space based on gender identity'.

That is undoubtably true. If a transwoman enters a female space that space is no longer single sex.

However I am unsure what legal rights exist to give women the right to single sex spaces. The trouble seems to be that the law seems to assume that they are something someone will want to provide, and go from there.

Workplace regulations mean I have the right to a single sex toilet at work (but we all know how many workplaces ignore that in their transgender policies).

I haven't looked into prisons legislation.

But I think everything else is based on a providers right to provide a single sex service. If they choose to provide one great, if not I don't think I have the right to one.

If a provider chosses to open a female space to transgender women without a GRC, the people who are being discriminated against (legally) are, I think, not women, but men who would like to access that space but who are turned away and do not say they are transwomen. This makes it much harder to deal with through litigation, I think.

Clearly females are discriminated against in the same way by not being able to go into male spaces if those male spaces are open to transmen without a GRC, but that doesn't help me if what I want is a female space.

If my religion was one which forbade me to (for example) undress with men, then possibly the lack of provision of a single sex space may be discrimination due to my religion - but as it happens that is not my religion so that doesn't help me.

That means that where the single sex space is provided by the government (prison, hospital, school etc) it is the government we can petition to keep those spaces single sex. And that is useful because the government would not want to have a policy that is 'hypothetically discrimatory' if I can put it like that (eg discriminates against a woman who wants to enter a male single sex space, even though that is less likely to happen).

But sports, for example, therefore need to be taken up with each provider/governing body.

Am I missing something? Ot do women actually have very few 'rights to single sex spaces' compared to 'the right to provide a single sex space'?

The Equality Act was introduced in 2010; so if a service is provided on the basis of sex it can be single sex, in some cases it should be.
And if single sex service exists today you can reasonably assume its legal to provide it.

You do have a legal right to some single sex spaces. A breastfeeding room is only for women who are breastfeeding. It excludes women who are not breastfeeding, and all men.

You are not a service provider, you are a user; so if a service provider says a space is single sex, or 'for women' then that's what it should be. If its mixed sex they need to change the name.
If a service is provided for one sex there's no good reason to make it mixed sex, or for you to expect it to be mixed sex. There can be separate services for each sex or group of users.

Thank you TheInebriati. I am clear it is legal to provide a single sex space, but I am less clear if a space says it is single sex but it isn't, what I can do about it.

Take a women only swim session (the 'reverse Man Friday').

It says women only, I think great, and then I turn up and there is a man there. I query this, and the swimming pool service provider says 'yes but we allow transwomen to come in'.

I say 'that means it is not women only'. They say 'that is our policy'.

What are my options?

I could alert other people to this policy - then they might change it to actually women only.
Or they could withdraw the women only service
Or they could stand firm - and then I think we are at a stale mate. I can't do anything to force a 'women only' policy to actually be that - can I?

You don't have a right to a single sex space as such, but you do have a right not to be harassed.

The definition of harassment in the EA is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

If a service provider says a space is single sex but it isnt, raise a complaint with them and if you want to go further it depends who they are. Maybe its possible to use Trading Standards in some cases?

'A woman's right to a single sex space cannot co-exist with a transwoman's right to enter a woman's space based on gender identity'.

Within the nonsense that is the trans umbrella there are a vast array of reasons why a person who identifies as a "transwoman" uses a woman's space. For some it is about a self declared gender identity, for some I accept it can be more nefarious reasons. For me as a post op transsexual my use of women's toilets is both about safety and the fact that the facilities offered meet me needs whereas make facilities do not. It is also about dysmorphia and dysphoria.

The legal definition of female and the biological definition of female are not the same thing. "Same sex" applies to same legal sex, not same biological sex.

The law has been grossly distorted by Stonewall and far too many have taken on board this manipulation.

A couple of quick points:

1. The protected characteristic is gender reassignment. It is not gender identity. One if Stonewalls lies.
2. A protected characteristic doesn't change a person's legal sex. There are now 650,000 people who identify as trans in the UK. For over 645,000 of these for all the protestations their legal sex is their biological sex. That's over 99.2%!
3. Legal sex can be changed through a GRC. Its not a perfect system and it needs changed but it's not completely broken.
4. Sex based laws apply to legal sex. For example Sex Discrimination is not biological sex but legal sex.

The spirit of the law was never about the nonsense we see now. It was about a very small number (5,000) being able to address dysmorphia and dysphoria and integrate following a complex medical transition.

As this debate goes on I believevwe will reach a position where a woman's space becomes a penis free zone. I don't believe it will be restricted to biological sex.

For me as a post op transsexual my use of women's toilets is both about safety and the fact that the facilities offered meet me needs whereas make facilities do not. It is also about dysmorphia and dysphoria.

It is not for women to provide a shield to men. If men's toilets are unsafe then that should be addressed for all men or a third space should be sought. It is also not for women to validate someone else's identity. We are not support humans.

The right to single sex provision exists where it would be discriminatory not to provide it. So for example: women would not be able to access a swimming pool because their privacy, dignity and safety is not protected in a mixed sex changing room. In this circumstance it is not only legitimate to provide a single sex space, it may be illegal not to because it would prevent women accessing the service. In this case single sex can refer to biological sex as a man with a GRC would still entering the space would still mean women's privacy, safety and dignity is not respected.

It is also not for women to validate someone else's identity. We are not support humans.

Acknowledging that a transsexual is different and has different needs is not validating an identity.

I do not think it productive to use the term "as a man with a GRC". To do so oversimplifies things considerably and shoves me back into the man pot with all the associated attitudes and behaviours.

There are indeed very specific situations in law where exclusion is permitted but the example you state of a changing room is not one of them. You cannot claim every "woman's space" as an exclusion. To exclude a transsexual from a swimming pool changing room on the basis that it's just "a man with a GRC" would be illegal.

Of course women's spaces are exclusive otherwise they are mixed sex spaces not women's spaces. It is impossible to have a female sex space with males in it.

It is not illegal to exclude males with a GRC from exclusively female spaces where those spaces are required for the privacy, safety and dignity of women. That was agreed at Ann Sinnot's recent application for judicial review.

It is not illegal to exclude males with a GRC from exclusively female spaces where those spaces are required for the privacy, safety and dignity of women.

By that argument you are presumably claiming that in every situation that is the case therefore you feel the law allows you to exclude transsexuals from every woman's space?

Of course women's spaces are exclusive otherwise they are mixed sex spaces not women's spaces. It is impossible to have a female sex space with males in it.

There's no of course about it. That is not what the law says. Why do you refuse to make a distinction between the average man on the street and someone who is a post op transsexual? Why is it necessary to consider it as all just males.

By that argument you are presumably claiming that in every situation that is the case therefore you feel the law allows you to exclude transsexuals from every woman's space?

Yes.

There's no of course about it. That is not what the law says. Why do you refuse to make a distinction between the average man on the street and someone who is a post op transsexual? Why is it necessary to consider it as all just males.

They are all just males. Sex is binary and immutable and not affected by how one identifies. Single sex spaces are single sex, not single gender.

A male is still a male regardless of surgery or traumatic injury. Once unpon a time I would have been sympathetic but not anymore. We have seen where sympathy has led to and the destruction of women's rights. Men are never women and can never be women.

*By that argument you are presumably claiming that in every situation that is the case therefore you feel the law allows you to exclude transsexuals from every woman's space?

Yes.*

Thats not what the law says. Exceptions are just that - exceptions. They are not the norm.

If a male enters a women's space, regardless of how they identify, surgery, or whether they have a GRC, upon entering that space it becomes mixed sex. The fact the GRA allows the distruction of women's spaces like this is why the GRA needs overturning.

Single sex services are permitted where:

only people of that sex require it;

there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;

if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;

they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);

they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or

they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

These exceptions would allow:

a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;

a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;

a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;

separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;

separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;

a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

effect on these protected spaces and services, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010. That is because the special circumstances set out in the 2010 Act, which allow organisations to treat trans people differently, do not hinge on whether the trans person has a GRC or not. To provide reassurance on this important point, we have written to the Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch MP, to reiterate that GRA reform is needed but that the Equality Act provisions protecting the rights of women to access single-sex services and spaces must be preserved

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/blogs/reform-gender-recognition-act

If a male enters a women's space, regardless of how they identify, surgery, or whether they have a GRC, upon entering that space it becomes mixed sex. The fact the GRA allows the distruction of women's spaces like this is why the GRA needs overturning.

That is your opinion which you are obviously free to hold.

In a previous post you stated that the law permitted you to exclude transsexuals however in your latest past you refer to your wish to see the GRA overturned.

This seems to be contradictory. Either the law allows you exclude transsexuals or it doesn't and you want it overturned to allow you to do so.

"It is not illegal to exclude males with a GRC from exclusively female spaces where those spaces are required for the privacy, safety and dignity of women. That was agreed at Ann Sinnot's recent application for judicial review."

Yes, but I thought that the successful argument advanced by the respondent was that any exceptions (e.g. excluding transwomen with GRCs) had to be done on a case by case basis, not as a blanket rule. Saying it is not illegal to exclude transwomen with a GRC is not the same as saying a provider has to exclude transwomen with a GRC.

So I think I agree with the OP's position on this, but would be useful to hear the Legal Feminist view.

^case by case basis

This means on a provider basis, not an individual basis.

°Saying it is not illegal to exclude transwomen with a GRC is not the same as saying a provider has to exclude transwomen with a GRC^

True. But in most traditionally single sex spaces the inclusion of men discriminates against women.

True. But in most traditionally single sex spaces the inclusion of men discriminates against women.

And the exclusion of transsexuals discriminates against transsexuals. This is what the law says.

No male, with or without a GRC, has been in a female only space. No law could enable this either. By entering such a space it immediately becomes mixed sex; whilst they are there they have removed single sex provision from all women using or wishing to use a singke sex space.

And the exclusion of transsexuals discriminates against transsexuals. This is what the law says.

The law allows discrimination for the purpose of single sex spaces. This is why the exceptions in the EA exist.

As Blue says, the law as it stands regarding a GRC was intended to protect transexuals. Rightly or wrongly it is the law and she is entitled to use the facilities in line with her legal sex rather than her biological sex. Would this not be 'the line' ? It is for me, as long as self id to get a GRC is not brought in it (which is off the table) and it maintains the existing social boundaries.

I think we had this discussion the other day on an entire 1000 post thread, let's not derail the OP's request for help.

The govt, even Liz Truss at this point, are not facing up to the basic conflict they have set up, and as pp says, the right of women to have single sex spaces, and the right of a transsexual or transgender person to use the space of their choice cannot co exist. However increasingly support seems to be being given that service providers can and should use the exceptions within the Equality Act.

We know those service providers have been subject to a great deal of political pressure and negative behaviour to try and make it sound illegal and wrong to allow women the right to any single sex space, and those spaces have been treated as targets by their mere existence even when there were plenty of mixed sex alternatives fully available. What will need to happen now is for groups to use those exceptions and for the govt and LAs to support them in standing up to the behaviour and pressure from a political lobby that does not want any single sex services to exist.

And by extension wish to discriminate against women who are excluded from any space which is not single sex in a biological, natal way, and leave them without provision. Which is why women need to be able to define themselves in a sex class based way.

There is a thread somewhere in the past year by a woman who wanted to set up a single sex lesbian group, and did so against pressure and requests that it should be mixed sex (mixed sex lesbian groups existed.) I believe she did manage it, and it included being specific about why her users required access to a single sex group, and being ready and able to signpost those not of that sex class but who wanted this provision to other groups available to them.

And the exclusion of transsexuals discriminates against transsexuals. This is what the law says.

Excluding transwomen from male toilets is discriminatory and is what the law says.

To your original point OP.. as far as I can see the current law in place is actually fair and reasonable, with appropriate provisions. The problem is that the service providers, from an M&S changing room to a prison or hospital have totally ignored any of the legal exclusions in the legislation in the face of Stonewall’s lobbying and incorrect advice and in fear of being accused of transphobic. All safeguarding has gone out of the window.

I think the only option is to keep bringing the issues out into the open, because if more reasonable discussion is had on these matters the more organisations will feel confident to make use of legitimate sex based exemptions. The problem is that no private organisation wants to be seen as transphobic, and it seems this characteristic has trumped all others. Eg if the potential presence of males in a changing room is preventing women of some religions using the service, well that’s just hard luck for the religious woman. There doesn’t seem to be an appetite to solve that problem. Or is it simply because trans rights activists demand the attention, the religious woman just stops using the service with no explanation?

@AdHominemNonSequitur

As Blue says, the law as it stands regarding a GRC was intended to protect transexuals. Rightly or wrongly it is the law and she is entitled to use the facilities in line with her legal sex rather than her biological sex. Would this not be 'the line' ? It is for me, as long as self id to get a GRC is not brought in it (which is off the table) and it maintains the existing social boundaries.

But that is not the case. Males with a GRC can be excluded from females spaces and facilities/inheritances (and vice versa) as laid out in tbe Equality Act and the GRA itself.