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.

Thanks, I'll read through that. Am I right in thinking that David Lammy was the government minister in charge of steering the GRA through Parliament back in 2004? He must surely have had briefings back then from experts who would have provided him with statistics and details about medical and psychiatric care for transgender people. I appreciate it's a long time ago, but if he's going to spout off about this issue he should refresh his memory on the details, which quite definitely can't have included the assertion that the minority of transwomen who have sexual reassignment surgery end up with a cervix as part of the construction of the neovagina.

As above. Because a very wealthy, government funded, male led and male dominated organisation has repeatedly misrepresented the law to fit their own agenda and best interests, and unfortunately a huge number of those who should have engaged their brains and done their jobs better, wrongly trusted and fell for it. They wrongly believed that they were dealing with impartial experts instead of a partisan and controversial political lobby group with a very definite male-centric agenda.

As the judicial reviews have recently repeatedly concluded: women need to start bringing cases to sue and force the law to be applied.

Another thread here about the parliamentary debates around the GRA. All the current problems were recognized and raised at the time as potential unintended consequences, but were brushed aside, largely on the grounds that it was only going to affect a tiny group of around 5,000.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3103653-Gender-Recognition-Bill-2004-Hansard-records

As well as all the previous answers; because the people who are affected by discrimination are the ones who have to find the money to bring a case.

There was a consultation in 2012, after which the govt decided to ignore the overwhelming support for the original system and weaken the powers of employment tribunals, which basically left the wolves in charge of the sheep.

Equality Act 2010: employment tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases and obtaining information procedure
''We want to encourage employers to tackle weaknesses in their equality policies and practices; and we want those who think they
may have been discriminated against to be able to explore the facts with the employer or service provider without going to court or an employment tribunal.''
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136235/consultation-response.pdf

What the Government ignored was despite the fact that The Equality Act was not a new piece of legislation (it replaced existing equality legislation), many employers were still discriminating against employees, and many middle managers were still receiving no training in employment law.

That lack of training in employment law is usually presented as 'equality training' and not 'legal compliance training' and imo that changes the way people think about it.

As the judicial reviews have recently repeatedly concluded: women need to start bringing cases to sue and force the law to be applied.

This because the underlying processes are not technically illegal. However women’s rights are being undermined because exemptions are not being applied and are entirely voluntary under the current law. The laws are not fit for purpose and judicial review can only ensure the laws are applied. They cannot modify them.

I suspect for legal changes to occur, women are going to have to prove over and over that their rights are being breached on an individual basis to a level where the fact that their laws are inadequate to protect women can no longer be ignored by lawmakers. There are no short cuts, as the failure of the judicial reviews (and the related comments from judges) indicate.

As far as I understand it, the equality act allowes for exemptions for single sex facilities but leaves the decision weather to use the exemption up to the institution, and institiutions are choosing not to use the exemptions. Weather this is because they dont understand the law, have been misadvised (ahem Stonewalled) or just are staffed with individuals that have an overriding conviction that men must be centered at all times I dont know, I think it could be some combination of all of the above.

@AnyOldPrion

As the judicial reviews have recently repeatedly concluded: women need to start bringing cases to sue and force the law to be applied.

This because the underlying processes are not technically illegal. However women’s rights are being undermined because exemptions are not being applied and are entirely voluntary under the current law. The laws are not fit for purpose and judicial review can only ensure the laws are applied. They cannot modify them.

I suspect for legal changes to occur, women are going to have to prove over and over that their rights are being breached on an individual basis to a level where the fact that their laws are inadequate to protect women can no longer be ignored by lawmakers. There are no short cuts, as the failure of the judicial reviews (and the related comments from judges) indicate.

We need a new, self funded Womans Law Center who can take these cases on. Someone made a thread about setting up a funding platform, I think this could be the start of making a legal womens defence fund.

@Warmduscher

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?

This is just Mishy misinformation again. The policy states that prisoners are placed in a prison according to their legally recognised 'gender'. So a male rapist will go to a women's prison if he has a GRC which makes him legally 'female'.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

If anyone is interested in reading Christine Burns twitter there's interesting information to be found.

In particular Burns was calling women pig ignorant for ever thinking that single sex meant anything other than free choice.

@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.

You understand wrong. Under the EA2010, employers and service providers can provide single sex services under certain circumstances. However, single sex doesn't necessarily mean excluding trans people - according to the Equality Act guidance, single sex spaces should usually be trans inclusive, unless you can reasonably justify trans exclusion. If a service provider gets taken to court for excluding a trans person, the onus would be on them to establish they had a reasonable justification that wasn't discriminatory.

But even if you can reasonably justify exclusion, you don't have to exclude - there's no penalty for being more inclusive than you have to be. The EA2010 doesn't oblige service providers to offer single sex services (trans exclusive or otherwise) it just lays out a set of circumstances in which they legally can if they want to.

Whether a trans person has a GRC or not is irrelevant to their treatment under the act, which makes no distinction between trans people with or without a GRC, and in fact it may be illegal for a service provider to ask a trans person to produce a GRC.

This is the current status quo and has been clearly established in recent legal cases (AEA vs EHRC most notably, as well as the High Court judgement on trans women in prisons).

Whether a trans person has a GRC or not is irrelevant to their treatment under the act, which makes no distinction between trans people with or without a GRC

Are you suggesting that the prisons policy I linked to is illegally making a distinction between trans people with a GRC and those without, since it refers to 'legally recognised gender'?

Does this mean you think that all rapists should be free to choose a 'female' gender identity so that they can all go to women's prisons? Or that they should all keep their penises in the men's estate where they belong?

Blueberry yet again demonstrating the notion that single sex services are default mixed sex.

The judge in the case referred to summed up saying that the government intention was that transexuals were to be treated differently to men, but this does not mean the same as women.

Feeling uncomfortable is not a legitimate purpose. Well thanks for that @MishyJDI

Now we, women, can shout back, at TRAs everywhere - and your discomfort means bugger all in law either!

And then we can all set about having a proper discussion about what to do when the rights of different cohorts conflict.

Thanks for the confirmation that feelings mean nothing!

If a service provider gets taken to court for excluding a trans person, the onus would be on them to establish they had a reasonable justification that wasn't discriminatory.

Which is exactly the same as the situation for excluding men.

If a service provider gets taken to court for excluding a trans person, the onus would be on them to establish they had a reasonable justification that wasn't discriminatory.

Such as providing a female only service to meet female need, or not excluding females from a female only provision.

Yes.

No no no Bluebs you know better than that! You cite the guidance and twist it knowing that your version as the complete opposite of the examples in the very same gudiance you seem to rely upon!

Single sex means single sex, not mixed sex if someone wants it to be!

And Self ID doesn't exist, and there is a very, very blurred line around 'gender reassignment' that simply did not exist when the Act was written.

If a service provider gets taken to court for excluding a trans person, the onus would be on them to establish they had a reasonable justification that wasn't discriminatory.

Yes, as in a local rape crisis / DV centre stating unequivocally that it caters only for females as per it's articles, charitable status and, sadly, 30 year existence.

Why would anyone take such a charity to court for doing what it was set up for, is funded for?

Just as the Men's Shed MH team is there only for males, as per it's articles, charitable status and, sadly, mere 2 year existence.

there is a very, very blurred line around 'gender reassignment' that simply did not exist when the Act was written.

Indeed the Act introduced some of that blurring as they attempted a kind gesture towards those who intended (genuinely) to transition, but hadn’t really made much of a start. Because if you include that group, it opens the door to any Tomminanda, Dickenarealis or Harrietina who can claim they are intending to, even if they aren’t, as nobody can prove otherwise.

Feeling uncomfortable is not a legitimate purpose.

MishiJDI keeps asserting this on every comment about the issue. This is false. The Equality Act 2010 explicitly allows for exclusion on this basis. There's even a specific exception for this in Schedule 3, Part 7, Subsection 27, Paragraph 6b:

the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

And changing rooms are given as a specific example in the Explanatory Notes:

These exceptions would allow
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/4/3

The test usually applied is that of "a reasonable person". As the vast majority of the population continues to understand that we are male and female and accepts that members of either sex may reasonably feel uncomfortable undressing in the presence of members of the opposite sex in public spaces, it is legal to exclude men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from changing rooms provided for women.

The EHRC in its statutory code for services argues that those who are indistinguishable from the opposite sex should be allowed to use opposite-sex facilities, but the cases that have come to light where companies have caved in have all involved individuals who were obviously male. There is contention about the EHRC's position, from both sides of the debate, but in all of these cases even the EHRC would say no access to opposite-sex changing rooms.

My thanks to CharlieParley for tirelessly c+ping that information.

I am sure I am not the only one, Mishy and Bluebs included, who can quote from it verbatim!

This is the current status quo and has been clearly established in recent legal cases (AEA vs EHRC most notably, as well as the High Court judgement on trans women in prisons).

AEA vs EHRC has no bearing on other cases because it set no legal precedent. It established nothing, in other words. As the argument and reasoning of the judge was distinctly illogical, I expect that a similar case would end differently (the judge was saying for instance that AEA's argument was absurd, because if it wasn't they would be right. That's astonishingly circular reasoning. The Legal Feminist blog has an excellent article on that called Schrödinger's PCP.)

Most importantly however, there is something that most commenters from the self-id side of the debate keep forgetting:

The EHRC stated in court that blanket trans exclusion policies are not in compliance with the statutory code.

And the code says that organisations really need to have a good reason to exclude people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from their service.

Yes, they did say that, and this is emphasised and celebrated by BlueberryCheezecake & friends.

The EHRC also stated that blanket trans inclusion policies are not in compliance with the statutory code either.

And the code does say that organisations must carefully consider the detriment to other service users if a member of the opposite sex is included in a single-sex service and the service must balance the rights of both, and not merely prioritise the needs of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(In practice this means a service can exclude them outright, but it would be preferable for them to offer an alternative provision to people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment that means they don't have to use the space provided for their own sex but which excludes them from the space provided for the opposite-sex. That would be legal, legitimate and proportionate.)

Yes, the EHRC really did point that out. I'm sure we're all just meant to ignore that though.

Yes, the EHRC really did point that out. I'm sure we're all just meant to ignore that though.

I think you may be right. So come on ladies, how about it? Bow down, give in, shut up!

Not on your nelly

We have the carefully reached conclusion from UK sports councils this morning stating that the wishes of male people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment cannot be reconciled with fairness and safety to women; it is a case of choosing one. (Should wishes of one party be more important than fairness and safety of the other?)

And that the answer is to provide mixed options and women only.

We're starting to get there.

No one wants male people with this protected characteristic to not have their needs met, or to not have provisions available to them in respect of their characteristic.

But equally, no one should want female people to not have their needs met, or to not have provisions available to them in respect of their characteristics.

Women are not lesser than male people. Male people obviously cannot require answers that unfairly and unequally require removing these things from women that they themselves insist on.

Third spaces.

@moregarlic

Thanks NecessaryScene that’s really helpful.

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

Not directly but it could be argued that a lack of single sex spaces discriminates against Muslim women. Then there are women suffering from PTSD which gets triggered by being in a vulnerable position around men, failing to provide reasonable adjustments would be disability discrimination.