Is this true?

[RockGirl]

Hi all

I need some advice regarding these two statements. Is this true?

They are for a workplace, not a school. So not sure if that makes a difference. They are part of a larger statement which largely is sensible, but these two areas concern me.

..........................
Legal Framework:
The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against, or to harass or victimise a person because they are intending to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone gender reassignment whether or not they have had or intend to have any medical gender reassignment treatment.
The Act also protects:
• People who face discrimination because they are perceived as trans;
• People who face discrimination because they are associated with someone who is, or is
perceived to be, trans.

..........................
Use of facilities:
Transgender people use the facilities that match the gender with which they identify. Trans staff and students are not limited to the use of gender neutral facilities and are be able to access facilities, spaces or groups which align with their gender identity.

The legal framework text is correct, as far as I understand it.

The use of facilities section is not correct.

Thank you.

I'm sure this has been covered before regarding facilities. Are you aware of an existing thread that gives more info. Mostly I've seen it referencing facilities for children.

The first bit is true. The second bit isn't.

And it's the same for other protected characteristics. Eg you can't fire someone
because they are gay, or because you think they're gay (even if it turns out they're not).

The bit that's not right it is what constitutes discrimination. Single sex exceptions were written into the act just for this reason. You can exclude men, and transwomen from all spaces, as long as it's deemed a 'proportionate means to a legitimate end.'

Which is eg supplying them with a different facility, because women in the first facility are uncomfortable. That's both proportionate and legitimate.

being told you're not allowed to do that is not true. It's 'Stonewall law', not real law . And Stonewall have got into trouble for advising it.

I'm afraid that most of the document I'm reading has been lifted from Stonewall most likely.

There's another bit that concerns me.....
This guidance applies, but is not limited to, admissions, to teaching, learning and research provision, to scholarships, grants and other awards

Presumably if there's a grant for women only, it could be awarded to a trans person?

No, you can still exclude them.

have a look at Fair play for women for the legal wording. and they do a really good job of explaining it in non lawyer speak too.
You can absolutely exclude tw from women's spaces/facilities/awards.

agree with all PP
yes, what they are trying to say is that a grant/scholarship etc aimed at women could be given to a transwoman- but the single sex exemptions in the Act allow you to reserve them for a biological woman- because the legitimate aim would be to increase women's participation in a field or at a level where they are under-represented, and the award etc would be a legitimate means of doing this. On the other hand, it would be illegal discrimination to not appoint a suitable qualified trans woman to an academic post just because they were trans.

Transgender people use the facilities that match the gender with which they identify.

Facilities don't have a gender. They are disaggregated by sex, if anything. It is transphobic to conflate sex and gender.

Agreed.

There are a high number of women who Co sr their hair at my workplace. They would be mortified if they were adjusting their head scarf in the toilets to find they are sharing the space with someone with male genitalia, regardless of how they present.

The problem with the single six exemptions is that they were made discretionary. In other words, not obligatory.

No one in their right mind thought that this would result in men in women's prisons and playing women's sports.

But nonetheless here we are.

It is, however, completely legal to exclude.

What you need to do is quote two other sections of the Act e.g. sex based rights and Religion or Belief. Make it clear sex is not gender identity but gender identity and gender critical beliefs are protected.

Also set out the legal difference having a GRC makes. Whether you agree with it or not, a GRC legally allows a person to changed their legal sex. As such they may (being debated) legally be able to use a single sex space but someone who is transgender but doesn’t have a GRC is not legally allowed to use SSS. This is a big legal difference as only c5,000 people have a GRC.

Also quote HSE toilet/facilities minimum sex based requirements then use the 2021 census to illustrate that 93.5% of population identify as birth sex and 0.5% do not identify as their birth sex so any provision should be in proportion e.g 0.5% unisex, 93.5% single sex male/female.

I've just posted the relevant links from The Equality Act on another thread;

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4721397-starmer-may-make-the-labour-party-electable?page=3

Make it clear sex is not gender identity but gender identity and gender critical beliefs are protected.

Not quite correct - gender identity is not protected, only gender reassignment. (Gender critical beliefs are protected, under a separate category.)

And that is also a mistake in the first quote in OP - the protection is for people who have undergone, are undergoing or propose to undergo a process of gender reassignment (or who are perceived to belong to this group) as stated in the first point. Not all people who are 'trans' as in the following points - under Stonewall type definitions trans is a rather wider group.

My original quote was “What you need to do is quote two other sections of the Act e.g.sex based rights and Religion or Belief. Make it clear sex is not gender identity but gender identity and gender critical beliefs are protected.” with the clear implication that the op should quote the Religion and belief pc because that is where the protection is for both gender critical and gender identity beliefs.

Nowhere did I say gender identity was under the gender reassignment pc, because it’s not.