“Is it illegal to exclude males where females are naked? The current law isn’t clear.

[ScrollingLeaves]

•   Currently there is confusion in the Equality Act over whether providers of sports, hospitals, changing rooms, shared hostels and over-night sleeper trains, are allowed to keep men out of women’s provision
  

•   This means many services for women are scared to protect women from male predators, because they are worried they will be breaking the law
  

•   right now, women and girls have no guarantee that ‘single sex’ means truly single sex
  

•   Women and girls have already been sexually assaulted and raped in single sex hospital wards, prisons and toilets by men
  

Is it illegal to exclude men where women are naked?

The current law isn’t clear.

Many of us have just recently become aware of this vagueness in the law, but meanwhile have been noticing for some time how many women and girl’s sex based spaces have been removed. We are trying to ensure steps are taken to change this.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

A lot of confusion is caused by the ‘case by base basis’ thing. Is it talking about individuals or each service itself? Here it seems that the NHS is saying it is by assessing each individual male on a case by case basis, as to whether he should go in a female ward.

“Patient placement needs to be done with the full engagement of the patient involved and on a case by case basis.”

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4676340-scottish-hospitals-warned-over-isolating-transwomen

Why aren’t they able to say “this is a female only ward, no males, full stop.”?

Have a look at Michael Foran on Twitter. He’s a legal academic who specialises in discrimination law and has done a few threads on how the EA and GRA interact and the effects they have. There is usually a lot of discussion with other lawyers which is always good for a legal geek-out 😀

Yes. We need clarity.

I thought this petition had ground to a halt. Nice to see it moving again!

And to further the example Endlesstea used, a hospital might assess a transwoman to determine whether to use a ‘female’ ward, but nowhere do they suggest making any assessment of how that might affect the women also being treated on that ward.

if this matters to you or your sister, your mum, your daughter or your friends, please have a look at OP’s link

JKR just gave it a boost

https://twitter.com/jkrowling/status/1633401094414925825?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

No engagement with the other patients necessary, then?

I would have thought it would be an easy answer. Where people are naked, then you could easily argue the lines of exemption on the grounds of a legitimate aim, risk assessed against each trans person in the circumstance. For example if they still had male genitalia or were post surgery.

I dont see why it is not clear.

Reality is, there are very few places now with open changing areas, as I as a woman dont really want my bits on show to others, regardless of their sex!

People only really get naked in showers and changing rooms though, and other than in a prison context, absolutely nobody is going to be standing on the door checking whether a male person has had his knob removed before allowing or denying him entry to the women's changing rooms.

If you don't have bouncers performing genital inspections on the door (which I think we can all agree is not the way forward), then distinguishing between trans people based on whether they've had surgery or not is completely unworkable.

I don't want any male people in the women's changing rooms, or toilets, prisons, hospital wards, rape crisis groups or sports for that matter, regardless of what they have or haven't had done to their genitalia.

I hate the case by case thing. It's just passing the buck.

As if a busy ward nurse has the time or the available data to fully risk assess each individual patient. And then they would have to be the one saying "I've risk assessed you and don't think it's safe to put you on the women's ward" and then be the one to face any repercussions.

Because trans persons are calling the shots at Holyrood and they don't give a damn about what happens to real women and Sturgeon does as she's told.

Yes, there’s the male gaze thing - that surgery can’t do anything about.

But why are trans people calling the shots?

They're a tiny, tiny minority.

How did they become so powerful?

In the Equality Act the cases are types of service provided, not types of individual. So I think the NHS interpretation is wrong.

The explanatory notes make it clear that single sex services are legal and that they can be single sex, not single gender.

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

Because it isn't about a tiny minority of people with gender dysphoria. It is about men, a huge proportion of whom hate women having any "special treatment".

But it's still only a tiny minority of men who want to "identify as women" though.

We need clarity.

Even if we don't like the clarity and it is legal, then we know and we can fight it.

The current situation is not good at all for women.

And let's not forget, the law was written to protect a very very small number of transsexuals who really did suffer from gender dysphoria.

The law was not written to encourage AGP males to transition and for their fetishes to become socially acceptable and for women to become victims of these men.

The law was not written to encourage young girls to cut of their breasts and get hysterectomies because of social contagion.

The law was written for a different time.

We need clarity.

Where people are naked, then you could easily argue the lines of exemption

Except may organisations don't do this, because they are worried about a discrimination case being brought, involving cost and publicity

But they aren't the only ones who want to trample on women's rights.

It isn't about them wanting to be women necessarily it is about them not wanting us to have something they don't. Like the kid in the playground who only wants the ball the other kid is playing with, not the other ball.

IWD demonstrates it perfectly. All the men wailing "why can't we have a day for men" or "there's never anything for straight white men" etc who do fuck all on IMD because they don't care, they just want to ruin shit for women.

So all those men happily become "allies" of the TW and call women bigots for not allowing TW into our spaces when they and men like them are the reason TW aren't safe in male facilities.

I mean, I get what you're saying and I definitely recognise type. The bearded woke bros who are delighted that they now get to be openly misogynistic and call it "feminism".

But in general I find that normal guys are much more likely to say it's all a load of nonsense, whereas a lot of women are resolutely TWAW/"be kind".

Brilliant, JKR is simply amazing.

Thelnebriati· Today 11:21

In the Equality Act the cases are types of service provided, not types of individual. So I think the NHS interpretation is wrong.

The explanatory notes make it clear that single sex services are legal and that they can be single sex, not single gender

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

Yes, that is true. That is what Suella Braverman tried to say last summer. That is what the Government response so far to the first 10,000 signatures in the petition says. BUT it doesn’t work because the meaning of sex as a biology rather than a gender is no longer clear.

FWS’s claim was dismissed by Lady Haldane in a judgment published on 13 December 2022. Lady Haldane stated that the meaning of the word ‘sex’ for the purpose of the EqA 2010 ‘is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC’.

As Dr Michael Foran pointed out giving oral evidence to the House of Commons in January and February along with other lawyers, if a man with a GRC were to be excluded from a women’s prison, he could litigate on grounds of discrimination.

Please look at the OP of this thread which has a link to these discussions including Dr Foran:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

But as if that isn’t bad enough, it appears not to be legal to ask someone if they have a GRC.
In most circumstances it would be inappropriate to ask a person to prove their legal sex by producing a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate, and in some circumstances this could be unlawful.4 Apr 2022
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com › .Protecting people from sex and gender reassignment discrimination^*

In practice that means someone with the much vaguer characteristic of Gender Reassignment in the Equality Act - which can mean almost anything see rapist image below - is treated on their say/so. Stonewall has encouraged this sleight of hand.

Even judges apparently get this wrong: there was the NHS who lost a case last summer brought by a MtF transgender (male by biological sex) using the women’s changing room. The judge treated that person as though they were one of the women even though there was no mention he had a GRC.

Trans NHS worker wins discrimination case after being 'embarrassed' by her boss confronting her over 'concerns' from staff that she was 'naked from the waist down' in shared changing rooms
(Daily Mail 19 July 2022)

The NHS lost the case on grounds of Gender Reassignment Litigation. Many people with legal knowledge on Mumsnet thought the NHS should appeal, but no doubt they lack time and money.

Here is an HR magazine effectively warning organisations.

The trust – which gives staff equality and diversity training – encouraged workers to be respectful to her, however soon after joining she suffered abuse. The transgender woman was asked by her manager whether she wore underwear at work or ‘if she wore it in general’.

The questioning came because there had been ‘concern’ among staff that the transgender woman was ‘naked from the waist down’ in the communal changing room and she had made a ‘light-hearted’ comment about being so hot at work she took her pants off.

Concluding, Employment Judge Sarah-Jane Davies ruled a female manager quizzed her because she is transgender. Judge Davies said: ‘A concern about the woman’s state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.

(e.g had a penis -my words see this article for the likely reason for this person being transgender
archive.ph/2023.01.23-005556/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/22/britain-becoming-sick-trans-debate-facts-can-cure/)

This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.

‘The Tribunal therefore concluded that [the manager] asked the questions because of a concern that the woman as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.

(They asked because they were woman of the sex female, and the transgender person was of the sex male. But the judge is saying the Equality Act characteristic of Gender Reassignment makes the male transgender person a woman too - my words and said they wouldn’t have asked a woman that so they were discriminating)

The employee won a claim of gender reassignment discrimination related to the underwear questions.
www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2022/transgender-nhs-worker-wins-gender-reassignment-discrimination-claim-concern-among-staff-woman-naked-waist-changing-room/

So given how institutionally captured or confused even the judiciary
would seem to be, what organisations want to risk litigation?

It does need making clear that when the Equality Act says sex based spaces, or provisions, or associations are allowed as exceptions under the Act, it means sex by biology, not gender.
Nearly about 90,000 people have joined in trying to bring this to the Governments attention with the hope of getting the 100,000 to trigger a debate in Parliament.

This includes Julie Bindel and J K Rowling. If you would like to join us too:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

❤️ JKR

Part of the problem is that, despite the fact they've had a few decades to do it, no one in Government has written clear guidelines for the Equality Act. This means that the onus of interpreting the law, safeguarding women and children and preserving single sex spaces falls on the groups that exclude. Since TRAs will take legal action at the drop of a hat (looking at you idiot at a bus stop), this means your average rape crisis centre, gym or lesbian knitting circle is under a lot of pressure.

It is legal to exclude males to protect the privacy, dignity or safety of women. Where women are naked then this would clearly apply. The problem is they don’t have to. We need more cases to show that the failure to provide actual single sex spaces is discriminatory towards women.

Except may organisations don't do this, because they are worried about a discrimination case being brought, involving cost and publicity

It's funny how they're worried about a discrimination claim being brought by male bodied people, but not by women. Funny that isn't it (not).