Dr Michael Foran on the Equality Act

[ArabellaScott]

www.scottishlegal.com/articles/michael-foran-getting-the-equality-act-right

Dr Michael Foran is a lecturer in public law at Glasgow University:

'Sex matters when analysing gender reassignment discrimination.

It is therefore false to claim that there is a presumption within the Equality Act that it is unlawful discrimination to treat a trans woman as a man. Firstly, it will matter whether or not the trans woman in question is legally a man for the purposes of the Equality Act. Secondly, even a trans woman who is legally a woman may still be treated as a man in certain circumstances. In others, treatment as a man may be legally mandated. Being protected under gender reassignment does not change your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.'

Labour, take note:

'The exceptions set out in the Equality Act apply to single-sex services, not “safe spaces”. The reasons for setting up those single-sex services are set out in the Act and are manifestly not confined to concerns over safety. Other rights and issues are in play, including privacy, dignity, and religious freedom, which permit the establishment of separate-sex services.'

Glad that the University of Glasgow has a lecturer intent on analysis rather than interpretation guided by politics. I'd like to see him debate this with a lawyer who believes that gender reassignment DOES change your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

Although not a lawyer, I think Munroe Bergdorf would challenge him on this interpretation. MB seems to think they know about the law on this.

Well that explains RMW’s recent Twitter hissy fit at Foran.

Unfortunately I can’t see the Tweet in question as, despite never having interacted with RMW (I haven’t even whispered bundle) and along with many others it seems, I am blocked. Must be guilty of wrongthink by following the wrong kind of person or liking the wrong kind of tweet.

I'll never stop laughing at the bundles thing....

RMW has dedicated a satirical piece from The Onion to, amongst others, Foran.

"We firmly believe that it is journalism's sacred duty to endanger the lives of as many trans people as possible."

So correctly interpretating the Equality Act, is literal violence.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

A piece about US issues, lampooning journalists, is dedicated to an academic expert in UK law?

Makes about as much sense as you'd expect.

That Onion piece isn't even funny. They could have made it funnier. I could have made it funnier and I don't even agree with their take!

They should explain why journalism of this kind:
It Is Journalism’s Sacred Duty To Endanger The Lives Of As Many Trans People As Possible

has been so incompetent in its job as to not manage to raise the homicide victim rates of transgender people in the US even to the overall average level, not to mention the average male level.

It is possible that transgender people are the victims of violence at four times the overall rate and yet somehow less likely to end up being killed by that violence than the adult population on average in the US (and in the UK etc).

But this contradiction needs an explanation, and none seem to be forthcoming.

I can't get over how unprofessional RMW is. That incident where he posted on Sarah's thread was absolutely shocking.

And treading a fine line with the Brianna Ghey murder comment piece in the Independent too.

I hope the Bar Standards Board has been made aware.

I know several people reported White to the BSB over comments on Sarah's thread. Apparently - according to White - this wasn't a problem.

What i find fustrating with the EqA is that single sex services are legal, not mandatory. But a provider can advertise their service as single sex - "Woman's Changing Room", "Female Ward", but not make any attempt to keep it single sex, sometimes even saying that some men can use it.

If single sex isnt mandatory and they have no intention of it being single sex, why advertise it as such?

Also, its clear that trans people without a GRC are not their target sex, therefore shouldnt use the opposite sex spaces. But theres a question mark over when someone with a GRC is their target sex and when they are not. Why isnt it clearer? Doesnt everyone have the right to know what woman means is every situation?

The problem is that no small organisation wants to risk being dragged through the courts by an embittered TRA. There should be official guidance on which they could rely, but there isn't. The volunteers at a rape shelter or the members of a crochet group or the local sauna just isn't equipped to fight a lengthy precedent setting legal battle. So the route of least resistance is to stop single sex spaces.

Thank you, Arabella, that article was interesting.

What I don't get is that there seems to be nothing in the EqA that makes single 'gender' services enforceable. If any males are allowed in, on what basis are others excluded without it being discriminatory?