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.

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.

Just to add to that list in case helpful: also some orthodox Jewish women, some Roma/Traveller women, some women with Autism, and women who do not share the belief that transition changes sex and require privacy and dignity in spaces where they may be undressed, who would not be able to use a mixed sex space regardless of how the opposite sex identified. They all have an equally protected characteristic under law, and a right to access facilities. Dame Tani Grey has also voiced difficulties she experiences as a woman with a physical disability.

Prisons, well they do a risk assessment on the individual to validate they are genuine and will not harm fellow prisoners.
@MishyJDI I'd love to know what was in this risk assessment. Perhaps it includes questions such as:

Does this person have a history of sex offending?
and
Did this person only claim to be transgender after they were arrested?

Then again, maybe it doesn't include such obvious questions.

Ah! You'd think so, wouldn't you @DdraigGoch Especially as the answers have, more than once, proven to be

Yes

and

Yes

And still the male offender is housed in the female estate - and guess what?

Also worth checking who the risk being assessed is to. As at panels discussing male prisoners being transferred no one has represented, spoke for or even mentioned the needs and interests of the female prisoners in the situation, the primary purpose of a risk assessment can turn out on investigation to be intended to protect the male prisoner from risk such as experiencing transphobia from female prisoners.

There was the wing in a women's prison created for male prisoners who were too high risk to permit full transfer with the idea of there being some association but separate facilities etc. This however was never used for its purpose as the male prisoners involved, whose offending history against women had been so serious that the risk to women prisoners was considered to high took legal action against feeling discriminated against, and got what they wanted.

I at this point could not get more cynical. Many agencies, the prison services among them, now provide two totally different standards of interest, consideration and care based entirely on birth sex. It's proved beyond all doubt now that gender creates a hierarchy that benefits the male sex and disadvantages the female sex, and that trying to claim that sex is 'complicated' and 'not binary' does not make this harsh reality go away for women.

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

Well, that's worked out well hasn't it?

The only validation going on is the validation of males by females that said males are women, they are not and it is abusive to force females into being validation tools for men.

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'.

Evidence from the MoJ in the recent Judicial Review showed that they go in the female estate whether or not they have a GRC and, apparently, it is not allowed to ask whether they do actually have one. Superb safeguarding, really fantastic.

@RedDogsBeg

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'.

Evidence from the MoJ in the recent Judicial Review showed that they go in the female estate whether or not they have a GRC and, apparently, it is not allowed to ask whether they do actually have one. Superb safeguarding, really fantastic.

Do you have a link for the MoJ saying that they can't ask about a GRC? I can't find anything in the judgment about it. (But I just quickly searched for references to 'GRC' so I might have missed it).

If they think they're not allowed to ask about a GRC, they haven't understood what the law says (a bit poor for the MoJ).

Thanks so much for all the replies, I really appreciate it. I am going to make my way through them all in full and try and better understand.

It all seems quite murky and I’m struggling to grasp it in full to be totally honest. I will take my time this evening.

apparently, it is not allowed to ask whether they do actually have [a GRC].

It is not illegal to ask if someone has a GRC. Not for private individuals, not for organisations.

Asking the question is not illegal.
What is illegal is to share with others that someone has a GRC if such information sharing is not warranted by the person holding the information.

So, in the prison context, it is legal to ask for documented proof of someone's legal sex. This can either be a birth certificate or a GRC.

(It cannot be a passport or driving licence, because they don't show legal sex only but can also show self-identified sex.)

It is also legal for the staff member who has been given that information to share this with prison officers and others working with this prisoner. It would not be legal for that staff member to share this information with visitors, journalists and staff members who have no need to know this.

The privacy protections written into the Gender Recognition Act make sense only in the context of transsexuals who are (as the EHRC calls it) "indistinguishable" from members of the opposite sex. It makes sense, because one purpose of the law was to protect the privacy of transsexuals who for all intents and purposes pass as members of the opposite sex. Every time they had to show proof that they were who they said they were, they had to also disclose their sex, even when that was irrelevant. Which was not only embarrassing but often led to direct discrimination.

The privacy protections written into the Gender Recognition Act make no sense in the context of someone who is indistinguishable from members of his or her own sex. But it's what we've got, and many organisations not understanding the law is causing harm to women.

I would like to see a legal opinion exploring the issue of what should happen when a male prisoner is transferred to the female estate. Women prisoners notice that this person is male and protest the inclusion of a man, albeit a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, in their showers and public spaces.

If the prisoner has no GRC, there's no suggestion of any privacy restrictions and so prison staff are not required to gaslight the women and tell them this is a woman.

If the prisoner has a GRC, there's no suggestion in the Gender Recognition Act that the staff member privy to the information about someone's sex has to actively lie and deny their sex. They just cannot state outright "This is a man".

But do they have to lie to women prisoners and deny the male prisoner's sex? I would say no, but IANAL.

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?

Ah yes, they would be wouldn't they and if the point a few posts up is true about prisoners not needing a GRC then would all male prisoners have a claim to mixed sex prisons?

@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.

Because the exemptions are not compulsory. The service providers have a choice.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

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.

I've seen some of the presentations and materials in the National Archives in Scotland. They did not go into anatomy at all. They also did not make such outlandish claims about suicidality. They stuck firmly to the issues - that they couldn't marry, had no privacy if they had to prove their identity and they suffered discrimination. (All true)

What they did stress back then is that 40% of members of the trans community (in this case in Scotland) had no intention of ever medically transitioning and that the law should therefore not make a medical transition a condition for qualifying for a GRC. But unfortunately there was no one in government back then who at that point said, hang on a secomd, we need to discuss what that would mean in practice.

They did understand what it signified though - obviously male people in women's provisions. As demonstrated by the Women and Equalities department (I forget what that was called in 2003) who went out of their way to ensure that the Genuine Occupational Requirement was not only disapplied from GRC-holders, but also insisted that the arbiter of whether a male transsexual would be allowed to work for a care in the community company and deliver intimate care to a vulnerable woman or girl must not be the employer with a duty to the safety and wellbeing of their clients, but sole possession of a GRC.

They properly raised the issue of what does it mean to transition, who decides if you look like a man or a woman but instead of thinking about the needs of vulnerable women and girls at this point, they made it all about how distressing gatekeeping would be, how perception was too personal and diverged too widely for that to be a factor, so an employer was denied the right to exclude transsexuals who were obviously male from providing intimate care to female patients. To vulnerable women and girls who had not, after all, even been asked to consent to this.

Yeah that's almost 20 years of Labour not giving a shit about us.

Other things they considered: changing the laws around voyeurism and indecent exposure so it no longer applied to obvious and less obvious males in women's spaces as long as they had a GRC. Blanket protection. The sole MP who tried to raise the protection of women and girls and their rights to privacy, dignity and safety, was told off for his despicable transphobic views.

That's what happened when Labour passed the GRC.

In my view they knew that women and girls would be harmed and disadvantaged by the Gender Recognition Act, but relied on the fact that only a tiny number of men would ever want to apply for a GRC, and so it wouldn't be widespread damage, but only a few women would suffer. And that was deemed a worthwhile sacrifice for a cutting edge law that would make the Labour Government look ultra-progressive.

Now that it has become clear that more than 100 times more men are seeking to identify as women and that much of the dumpster fire going on today is their responsibility, Labour want nothing to do with the whole issue.

One of these companies is going to sue Stonewall for reputational damage and/or financial liability, one day.

Ah yes, they would be wouldn't they and if the point a few posts up is true about prisoners not needing a GRC then would all male prisoners have a claim to mixed sex prisons?

Male prisoners are currently only automatically sent to women's prisons in the UK if they have a GRC. Under self-ID, where any man could declare himself legally female (and obtain a GRC and new birth certificate) this would mean that any male prisoner could gain a GRC making him entitled to go to a women's prison.

Ireland has self-ID and this is already causing problems in prisons there.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200214152415/www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200214152415/www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners/

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

This isn't true.
There are no risk assessments for convicted male sex offenders who are trans.

'' the risk ax tool that is used for adult men who have been convicted of sexual offences, the OASys Sexual reoffending Predictor Score (OSP), is not used for male prisoners with a GRC because these prisoners are treated as female.''

''Documents obtained by us through FOIA indicate that no consideration was given to the safety of female offenders when drawing up the conditions of use for the OSP with prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender. ''

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1410929146503614464.html

Hope I'm not repeating someone else, but re. the Risk Assessment for prisons -

It came out in the Judicial Review that the 'tool' they use for Risk Assessment (I'm assuming that they are referring to an online thing) is different for male & female prisoners. So, as soon as one is declared 'female', the 'female' version is the only risk assessment that they can use. Therefore, any risk assessments carried out on male prisoners in the female estate, classed as 'women', are completely valueless.

Who'd have guessed it. We don't know which questions were missing - presumably (as said above) questions like 'have you raped anyone recently...'

It is not illegal to ask if someone has a GRC. Not for private individuals, not for organisations.

That's interesting CharlieParley as somehow the pervading notion that has been allowed to gain hold and traction is that it can't be asked about hence you have to take people on trust which is pretty much self-id in all but name.

During the JR, the MoJ stated they didn't routinely ask nor record whether the prisoner had a GRC.

The Ministry of Justice collects no data on prisoners who are GRC holders. The defence explained that this is because the MoJ believes that to collect data on GRC holders and to identify them as such could be a criminal act in accordance with Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act (2004). Section 22 prohibits, in certain specific circumstances, disclosure of information concerning someone’s gender recognition status.

The judges were incredulous that ‘no one knows’ how many GRC holders are in prison, particularly as the Policies contain provisions specifically relating to prisoners with a GRC. The Secretary of State for Justice was instructed to provide full and comprehensive data on trans prisoners, including separate figures for those with a GRC and the estate in which they are held. This will be the first time that data on prisoners with GRCs are collected and the first time that the true number of male prisoners held in the female estate will be calculated. It is not known whether this information will be publicly available.

Because the exemptions are not compulsory. The service providers have a choice.

And also, to be fair, service providers have been heavily pressured and trained (by political lobby groups, who are heavily biased towards their personal agenda and untrained in any other protected characteristic or Equality law generally) to believe that the exceptions are case by case meaning person by person (they are not), and that the bar for exceptions would be so high that the chance of an exception being legally safe was negligeable and high risk to invoke.

There is also the fact that service providers have seen and experienced the behaviour the lobby groups and supporters unleash if exceptions are attempted.

It has had, to coin a phrase, 'a chilling effect' which has successfully biased the whole system heavily against women. The sports council evidence today on another thread mentions repeatedly the fear of the people talking about fairness and risk to women being afraid to be named and of the consequences of stepping out of line.

This has not been achieved in a fair, open handed manner at all and has been intentionally biased, heavily, against the equality and voices of women.

The simple fact is that there are male prisoners in the female prison estate that do not have a GRC.

I think it was repeatedly mentioned in the recent court case (keep prisons single sex website has lots of information) that the judge was 'surprised' to find that the prison service apparently had no idea how many of their male prisoners in the women's estate had GRCs and hadn't thought to collect this information. The only statistics offered were regarding numbers of male prisoners in the female estate without GRCs.

A bit from the MoJ Policy:

Administrative systems accurately record the legally recognised gender of individuals (or best available evidence where this is not known).

The where this is not known is crucial, they are admitting that they do not know whether someone has a GRC or not in some circumstances, why not?

Who'd have guessed it. We don't know which questions were missing - presumably (as said above) questions like 'have you raped anyone recently...'

Which is fucking ridiculous as they'd have details of what the person was convicted and sentenced for.

The safety, privacy and dignity of women really doesn't register at all does it?

Richard Garside was tweeting recently about young female offenders being placed in the male estate.
twitter.com/Safe_Ground/status/1420663063854862338

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1420687271251021827

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1420648792433569795

The Ministry of Justice collects no data on prisoners who are GRC holders. The defence explained that this is because the MoJ believes that to collect data on GRC holders and to identify them as such could be a criminal act in accordance with Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act (2004). Section 22 prohibits, in certain specific circumstances, disclosure of information concerning someone’s gender recognition status.

Section 22:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Relevant parts:
(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

So my reading of section 22 is that the MoJ is entitled to hold this information, and can disclose it to the court if requested to do so.

Were they 'trained' by Stonewall?

I say this a lot I know, but can't be said enough:

considering less than 5% of rapes even end in charges, and less than that go through court and end in a conviction.....

any male sent to prison as a serious sex offender has committed multiple, very serious attacks . Many are category A prisoners.

There are no category A prisons for women; there are usually less than 20 in the system at any one time of anywhere near that extreme level of offending, where there are multiple cat A prisons for men. Therefore any category A offender moving to the women's estate is already experiencing a major step down compared to what they would have been permitted to have in the male estate.

And serious, multiple, serial offenders. This is who we're sentencing women to being locked up with to meet those male offenders' needs.