question: Protected characteristic under the Equality Act versus single sex provision

[bobthebuilderofstars]

When asked how people are allowed to use changing rooms this response was given by my gym.

Q : Are people free to use the bathrooms and changing rooms of the gender they identify with rather than their biological gender?

Answer: People will be using rooms for the gender they identify with as this is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Q: How does this fit in with safeguarding?
As with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act, being transgender is not in itself an indicator of a safeguarding concern and it would be discriminatory to regard it in this way.

Which is true.
But I want to point out that women should have access to single sex provision. How do I do that concisely? So far all my replies just waffle on.

@DisgustedofManchester

Gender identity IS NOT a protected characteristic. Sex is though.

This is semantics and probably only means anything within GC circles because legally its well accepted that the original language of the EA is now outdated. People can post this millions of times but the interpretation is and will probably always be in law that beig transgender is a protected characteristic becuase ... surprise surprise... it means gender reassignment is happening / happened. Every time I see this I have a picture of Veruca Salt stamping her feet shouting "no its true I tell you!"

Have some more cake love.

It's an interesting one and is demonstrated rather well by that YouGov survey often quoted by anti women posters to 'prove' that the general public have no issues sharing single sex spaces with those who are transgender. When it is made more explicit that transitioning requires nothing more than a pronouncement that that person is trans and doesn't necessarily mean that any surgery or other medical transitioning has taken place, the answers to survey questions are very different.

It's the same with these changes to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It takes no more than a pronouncement of an intention to transition - no actual transitioning necessary. It's a point which many people don't realise and when they do realise, their views regarding the importance of ensuring single sex spaces changes radically.

'Foot stamping' made me laugh! Anti women activists have threatened, smeared and tantrumed their way to this point. The strategy so far has been - can't get what you want? Shout transphobe!

Every time I see this I have a picture of Veruca Salt stamping her feet shouting "no its true I tell you!

Think you may be projecting.

Your belief is that the law is going to change to what you want it to be so current law no longer applies?

Pretty sure that’s not how it works.

protected characteristic" does not mean literally "protected". It means you cannot be discriminated against because of that characteristic

If single sex exemptions are enforced that males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment can be discriminated against because of their sex.

Every time I see this I have a picture of Veruca Salt stamping her feet shouting "no its true I tell you!"

Funny enough this is the image I get when males tell us that feelings or appearance is what makes someone a women as opposed to, you know, being female.

No one thinks all transwomen are a threat, just like all men aren't a threat, but males as a sex class do pose a threat to women and children, regardless of any claimed identity, and by pretending sex is irrelevant, all safeguarding and protection of females goes to shit.

It's very simple the "gender they identify with" is not a protected characteristic.

Sex is a protected characteristic, sex reassignment is a protected characteristic.

No need to go on about when single sex provision can exclude the opposite sex, they've fallen at the first hurdle.

yeah they have just fallen at the first hurdle. Will read carefully (wearing my verruca salt outfit obvs) and draft a reply.

Sex is a protected characteristic, sex reassignment is a protected characteristic.

And as recently shown in court, they are separate characteristics. Women and transwomen is not a valid characteristic.

I see the usual suspects have arrived to claim that all men can be trusted to never harm women and transwomen are all so nice and in case they aren't they were really men, you know, the ones we always trust never to abuse loopholes in laws...

@DisgustedofManchester

Gender identity IS NOT a protected characteristic. Sex is though.

This is semantics and probably only means anything within GC circles because legally its well accepted that the original language of the EA is now outdated. People can post this millions of times but the interpretation is and will probably always be in law that beig transgender is a protected characteristic becuase ... surprise surprise... it means gender reassignment is happening / happened. Every time I see this I have a picture of Veruca Salt stamping her feet shouting "no its true I tell you!"

Oh dear, you really are funny.

We just had a legally binding, precedent setting judgement in the highest civil court in Scotland confirming that gender or gender identity is not a protected characteristic and neither is "transgender woman" a protected group. And that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not mean one shares the same protected characteristic of sex with members of the opposite sex.

Did you miss it?

When discussing the law it helps to understand a little bit about it. The language of an Act of Parliament cannot be changed willy nilly in practice because some people deem it to be "outdated".
Who decides that anyway? And I think it's terribly outdated to pretend that women have no rights on the basis of their sex, but whatever.

Anyway, it takes an Act of Parliament to amend the language used in an Act of Parliament. Until that happens, the language used in the Equality Act 2010 stands as written. And as for interpretation, I refer you to the case For Women Scotland vs the Scottish Government. That is the most recent precedent on the issue. And the judgement was rather decisively against your position.

As for the hilarious notion that a law drafted with exceptional care just 12 years ago is so outdated that everyone working in law agrees with that claim ... it's one of your better jokes, DisgustedofManchester.

I believe the gyms owned by Duncan Bannatyne and quite possibly Pure Gym offer single sex changing rooms as a result of using the single sex provisions. I believe that Bannatyne Gyms offer alternative changing rooms for others. I would imagine that the Bannatyne Group has a legal department which has checked into the legalities of this decision and how it fits around the Equality Act.

My understanding is that whilst trans people are allowed to use these services it is also not illegal/discriminatory to prevent them if the exceptions are applied. Stonewall have done an excellent job at convincing organisations that such exceptions are a 'high bar' to reach which is questionable. To be honest the ECHR have given confusing guidance which hasn't helped.

In my opinion if the exceptions were highlighted in the original formation of the Equality Act 2010 then there must have been concern about these single sex spaces and sports - if not why bother including them in the first place.

My understanding is that whilst trans people are allowed to use these services it is also not illegal/discriminatory to prevent them if the exceptions are applied

No one is trying to exclude trans people from the facilities. We are asking that they honor the single sex facilities where they are present - just like everyone else.

Alternatively, Stonewall isn't short of a bob or two, why not campaign for 3rd spaces, rather than try to turn everything mixed sex.

People can post this millions of times but the interpretation is and will probably always be in law that beig transgender is a protected characteristic becuase ... surprise surprise... it means gender reassignment is happening / happened.

What does "gender reassignment is happening/happened" actually mean, objectively speaking?

@PearPickingPorky

People can post this millions of times but the interpretation is and will probably always be in law that beig transgender is a protected characteristic becuase ... surprise surprise... it means gender reassignment is happening / happened.

What does "gender reassignment is happening/happened" actually mean, objectively speaking?

It means a thought process is happening in which a male feels like accessing female spaces is something said male wishes to do.

Gender reassignment is a process that has loads of stages and we don't say you can drive if you say you are in the process of learning
You can't even say you are a leaner driver without a license

For the thousandth millionth time, the exemptions, even where they could apply, are optional, service providers are always allowed to choose to include trans people. Absolutely nowhere in British law is there any obligation for service providers to provide a single sex space which excludes trans people.

And the converse us also true. Nobody must include trans individuals. The guidelines make it really clear that the starting point can be as it has always been in common sense and logic.

Single sex means single sex.

That is the default.

Obviously nobody would apply it to employment, etc, because there is no good reason to.

But everybody should feel absolutely free to apply it where it would matter, like single sex spaces. Mainly because they are single sex spaces for a reason. And being trans does not, in common sense or law, override that!

@DisgustedofManchester

Claiming that all trans women are potential threats and banning them from female changing rooms therefore acheives a legitimate aim has been thrown out already. Claiming that a predatory man might pretend to be a trans woman cannot be used either.

"protected characteristic" does not mean literally "protected". It means you cannot be discriminated against because of that characteristic.

Again. Not transwomen. Men.

And you are wrong. Spouting utter rubbish.

Go on, show us your specific cases that back up your daft claims.

If the law allows us to separate sexes because males and females are different we need to understand how females abs transwomen are not different and show that transwomen are significant different to other males when it comes to factors that matter such as size or propensity to offend

Otherwise we are discriminating against males by allowing transgender women to share female spaces

A 'single-sex' space which allows members of the opposite sex to use it is no longer a single sex space, it is mixed sex.

Yes. By definition you cannot have single sex female spaces that allow trans women.

And we have no legal grounds for gender separation