How is this happening? Why aren’t companies etc. adhering to the equalities act?

[moregarlic]

I’ve been following this board for ages and it’s really helped me understand the situation. Thank you hugely to everyone who contributes.

One thing I don’t understand is HOW companies are able to ignore the equalities act?

As far as I understand: EA states sex is a protected characteristic and while a GRA allows you to legally change sex, there are exemptions for single sex spaces.

But if that’s the case, why are there people with penises in women’s prisons? Why are retailers saying use the changing rooms you identify with? etc.

I don't get it either, we should be dividing on sex not gender.
No point saying we have single sex wards if that is being over ruled by gender which can be fluid!

But if that’s the case, why are there people with penises in women’s prisons? Why are retailers saying use the changing rooms you identify with? etc.

Short answer is that that wasn't really the remit of the Equality Act.

The equality act was about preventing discrimination.

So stuff like you're talking about only came up in it as examples of permitted discrimination. A straight "equality act" would have barred single-sex spaces as sex discrimination. So they had to put in exceptions to say when that was permitted.

But it never occurred to them to say they were required, and that wouldn't have been part of "equality" anyway.

The most the EA2010 can help you is with a possible argument about indirect discrimination - providing only mixed-sex services could be said to harm women more then men, thus indirect sex discrimination.

There are some other laws and regulations requiring split-sex provisions, but they're not the EA2010.

Basically split-sex provision was so obvious that there's never really been much need to legislation to require it. Much as there's not much scientific literature stating that humans come in two sexes.

Thanks NecessaryScene that’s really helpful.

So there is actually no legal provision for single spaces as it stands?

There's been such a huge effort to give the impression that single sex services can never be justified without a court precedent, the result is providers don't take the risk.

The acceptable risk is discrimination against women, not trans.

why are there people with penises in women’s prisons? Why are retailers saying use the changing rooms you identify with? etc.

… because Stonewall got its dirty little fingers everywhere, and told everyone they were breaking the law and being bigoted. Recently there has been a little sunlight on some of this, and people are starting to realise the truth.

So they had to put in exceptions to say when that was permitted.
But it never occurred to them to say they were required, and that wouldn't have been part of "equality" anyway.

But surely where a company has separate women’s and men’s (say) toilets, they have invoked this exception.

If they then allow transwomen into the ladies’, aren’t they then revoking the exception, making it now discriminatory not to let the other men in?

Because stonewall have been misrepresenting the law for years and telling them that single sex spaces are illegal

It's not just Stonewall though, this has been going on far longer than Stonewall.

Press for Change talk about the legal history.

There's a definite contradiction in understanding. It's clear Press for Change believe single sex exemptions were written as mixed sex by default on a choice basis. Which is nonsensical obviously.

If you take them on face value it reads the opposite way which is a bit of a no brainer, why have a single sex exemption set out in law one way when it means the opposite.

This is where we are, pushing back against the concept of mixed sex single sex facilities.

There is also the reason that organisations can earn lots of brownie points by saying they are “inclusive” - for example M&S allowing people to choose whichever changing room they want to use, despite the fact this then excludes women who cannot share with men. The flip side is that anyone complaining is painted as a hateful bigot.

So no one is going to want to rock the boat so organisations get away with imposing mixed sex spaces with no apparent objections and being applauded for it.

Stonewall have been lying to corporations and businesses for years. This has been absolutely proven and reported on.

Why they are still allowed to be a charity and receive tax payers money, is criminal.

So there is actually no legal provision for single spaces as it stands?

There is legal provision to permit them. But generally not to require them.

There are regulations about single-sex toilets in schools, for example.

But generally otherwise, no.

There was a judicial review about putting men in women's prisons, and the conclusion of the judge was "this may be shit for women, but it's not illegal per se". The challenge would have to come from an "indirect sex discrimination" claim.

There are international laws - eg the Geneva conventions say that prisoners of war must have separate sex accomodation. It was felt necessary to spell it out in that case to a foreign country.

But it never occurred to anyone to make it law within this country.

The history of this is that women didn't have separate public spaces.

Women fought for them and created them and eventually they became a de facto reality. Women's toilets in workplaces and public spaces so women could participate in public life.

But they were never a legal requirement generally. They were just something that became common practice.

@aliasundercover

why are there people with penises in women’s prisons? Why are retailers saying use the changing rooms you identify with? etc.

… because Stonewall got its dirty little fingers everywhere, and told everyone they were breaking the law and being bigoted. Recently there has been a little sunlight on some of this, and people are starting to realise the truth.

Yes, this is the reason

Sex segregation is possible where there is a legitimate purpose under the EA2010 Act.

Probably an open changing room would be suitable, but a department store with its own cubicles for changing would unlikley to pass the test.

Prisons, well they do a risk assessment on the individual to validate they are genuine and will not harm fellow prisoners.

Feeling uncomfortable is not a legitimate purpose. You could use the same argument to discriminate against any other woman you felt make you uncomfortable - and that would be a slippery slope.

The EA act has been in place for 11 years, and quite simply there have not been major issues. The odd case of course, but you get bad eggs across all sections of the community. It's not a reason to fear transwomen trying to live their lives like the rest of us.

Since the Gender Recognition Act, the legal ability to alter one’s records, including birth certificate, to claim to be the opposite sex has complicated matters.

You'll note that some people miss the point and make it about "trans".

The EA2010 exceptions are what permit any sex separation.

If you believed the EA2010 exceptions did not apply to a case, then it would be fully mixed-sex. Not "women + transwomen".

@moregarlic

Thanks NecessaryScene that’s really helpful.

So there is actually no legal provision for single spaces as it stands?

There is. Single sex provision is legal if it is a “proportionate means to a legitimate end” in any context- regardless of GRC. As many others have said, the legitimate end has always been the safety, privacy and dignity of women. Until now, when we have achieved a perfect storm of a professed lack of clarity about what constitutes a woman while simultaneously demonstrating a total disregard for women’s rights, illustrative of utter certainty about what women are

Mishy gives a perfect demonstration of the problem - a complete dismissal of the need full single sex exemptions.

Prisons, well they do a risk assessment on the individual to validate they are genuine and will not harm fellow prisoners.

Who are “they”?
What does the risk assessment involve?
What does “genuine” mean?
What definition of “harm” are you using here?

Where can I find out more about this rigorous process that guarantees no women will be harmed by the placing of a biological male in the female estate?

@moregarlic

Thanks NecessaryScene that’s really helpful.

So there is actually no legal provision for single spaces as it stands?

We no. That is not the case.

Is that what you were looking for?

@MishyJDI

Sex segregation is possible where there is a legitimate purpose under the EA2010 Act.

Probably an open changing room would be suitable, but a department store with its own cubicles for changing would unlikley to pass the test.

Prisons, well they do a risk assessment on the individual to validate they are genuine and will not harm fellow prisoners.

Feeling uncomfortable is not a legitimate purpose. You could use the same argument to discriminate against any other woman you felt make you uncomfortable - and that would be a slippery slope.

The EA act has been in place for 11 years, and quite simply there have not been major issues. The odd case of course, but you get bad eggs across all sections of the community. It's not a reason to fear transwomen trying to live their lives like the rest of us.

There are no circumstances at all in which a convicted male sex offender or a convicted male violent offender should be imprisoned in a women's prison. This is not comparable to a woman feeling uncomfortable that another woman prisoner is a Muslim or a lesbian or has black skin. This is about women having the right to be safe from violence and sexual predators.

In past times it wasn't necessary to legislate on this point because common sense was applied and the above obvious points were takens as read. Now that common sense has fled the building, it may be necessary to get this into law after all.

“Feeling uncomfortable is not a legitimate purpose”.

Irony klaxon.

Single sex provision is legal if it is a “proportionate means to a legitimate end” in any context- regardless of GRC. As many others have said, the legitimate end has always been the safety, privacy and dignity of women.

Yes. Whereas there is, afaik absolutely no legal basis for 'single gender' provision . How could there be, when unlike sex which is binary and immutable, 'gender' is not binary - where do 'Nonbinary' or 'agender' people fit into this?
Oh, they choose whichever they feel more comfortable in... but as Mishy says, 'Feeling uncomfortable is not a legitimate purpose.'

“There are international laws - eg the Geneva conventions say that prisoners of war must have separate sex accomodation. It was felt necessary to spell it out in that case to a foreign country.”

The Geneva convention doesn’t state single sex, as far as I am aware. It states that women should be imprisoned in separate accommodation from men. We are now being told that men who claim they are women are women.

This neatly sidesteps all the requirements for the massive legal changes to laws that would be required to admit this group of men, where women already had specific protection.

I suspect this is one of the main reasons transactivism is now almost entirely concentrated upon ensuring that men who claim they are women are considered to be women. You will note that many human rights groups now have succumbed to the pressure from well-funded international lobby groups and do consider some men to be women.

Our laws have been undermined over many years and it has only recently become apparent that it has occurred and what it means. There is little doubt that this has been done entirely deliberately and with extensive planning. It has not come about by some kind of happy accident. It goes back way beyond Stonewall. Even the GRA was brought in under the radar, as stated by transactivist C. Burns in an interview with the Guardian.

It is going to take a great deal of effort to return from this position as it is now well-established and though our laws have all been undermined without consultation, when we try to reverse that situation, we are accused of trying to remove established rights.

I have bumped an old thread for any readers new to this who are interested to understand more.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007