“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

Thing is though, that rational discussion and unpicking of the indefensibility of it is shut down by saying 'gender bollocks' as the end of the conversation as much as 'TWAW'. It's a 'shrug, nothing you can do' response, that forces giving up and going away rather than arguing back.

I'm not saying "gender bollocks" to bring an end to the conversation.

What I mean is that the gender stuff is like a sort of magic incantation that people can invoke precisely to bring an end to the conversation, to prevent the normal rules regarding other people's rights, safety and dignity from being applied to this situation, and to make an exception to the rules for anyone claiming a non-standard gender identity.

As soon as these magic words are spoken, there can be no scrutiny, no safeguarding, no questions asked, and if you try to do these things you are called a bigot.

But you are right, what it needs is rational discussion and unpicking.

Why, for example, is taking a teenage girl abroad for female genital mutilation a crime attracting up to 14 years in prison, whereas Susie Green taking her teenage child to Thailand to have their genitals surgically removed completely without legal consequence? OK, the former is a crime under the Female Genital Mutilation Act and so only applies to children who have female genitals, but even if it had been the other way around and Susie Green's child had been a trans boy who travelled abroad for a phalloplasty, there is a "mental health" exemption in that legislation which would presumably have been relied on to prevent the mother from being held criminally liable.

Why? Why is it that normal standards of safeguarding do not seem to apply as soon as someone involved is - or claims to be - trans?

It's not.

Big Pharma is in the hands of a lot of very rich and powerful men, some trans. From every person that is trans they make at least a 150 000$ profit. They have been lobbying this shit for more than decade now. It is why the flags are everywhere and laws are being pushed that harm women and kids without proper consultations.

It's a men's "rights" movement.

I saw this in tra site looking at the pro or anti trans views of MPs

This is the undermining of the Equality Act we are up against. It is ridiculous the way the exceptions are ignored.

^Nick Brown, Newcastle upon Tyne East
A constituent reports that he wrote,
"I support the view that
the Governmentshould introduce a
system of self-declaration for trans
people and believe that any reform oft
Act should be used to progress rights.
also believe it is important that the
Government does not interfere with
protections under the Equality Act, whi
ensure that trans people are not
wrongfully excluded from single-sex
spaces^.

To make it clear in people’s minds that, to say it is wrong to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces, is a contradiction in terms, please sign this:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3
and follow Sex-Matters advice about writing to your MP

Sorry if this has been stated already, but just wanted to add a couple of key points that some may not be aware of

1. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.

You can be at any stage in the transition process, from proposing to reassign your sex, undergoing a process of reassignment, or having completed it. It does not matter whether or not you have applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is the document that confirms the change of a person's legal sex.

2. limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present will be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether or not the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate.

'to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.'

It's not possible to change birth sex. Yet this is written in law.

It has been determined by courts that the comparator for a man (transwoman) who has undergone gender reassignment/has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but doesn’t have a GRC, is another man. So a transwoman must not be discriminated against compared to another MAN.

A legitimate aim would be to protect the safety, privacy or dignity of women. So this would include changing rooms where a woman is partially dressed, or sleeping accommodation like dormitories.

@Jezzz
The Explanatory Notes in The Equality Act describe situations in which it is legal for a service to be single sex. They include a rape crisis counseling session;

740.Example
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

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

This does not have to be justified on a case by case basis as the service is provided on the grounds of sex, which is a separate protected characteristic from gender reassignment.

Similar examples would be services only needed by women such as a breastfeeding room, a miscarriage support group, privileges for women connected with pregnancy or childbirth.
These can all lawfully exclude men (even if they have a GRC), and service providers do not have to provide equal services for men or trans women.

Shelefttheweb · Today 17:14
It has been determined by courts that the comparator for a man (transwoman) who has undergone gender reassignment/has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but doesn’t have a GRC, is another man. So a transwoman must not be discriminated against compared to another MAN.

It was this difference that the Sheffield NHS case judge seemed to ignore.

This also shows that a GRC makes far more difference than people were trying to claim in the run up to the Scottish Parliament vote for Self-ID when people were saying it was just for😭a wedding certificate.

Originally the Equality Act was supposed to mean biological sex not GRC sex, though the law was badly written.

Someone who never loses out? That’s a man
Janice Turner
Wednesday December 14 2022, 9.00pm, The Times
This week a Scottish court ruled that a man becomes female just by obtaining a piece of paper. Lady Haldane’s judgment on the Equality Act 2010 is extraordinary. She argues that if those who drafted the legislation had believed sex was only “biological” they would have included that word. Yet back then, before gender ideology infected public policy, no one dreamt that “sex” could mean anything but material reality.

In Scotland, thanks to this, the Equality Act’s special provision for single-sex services is now dead. Women’s prisons, hospital wards or even rape crisis centres, such as Beira’s Place, just founded by JK Rowling, must treat as female any male who has obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Which, after the SNP rams through its genderrecognition bill, will be as easy to get as a parking permit.

I’m always fascinated that this madness never touches men. What if an earl’s eldest daughter got a GRC? Couldn’t s/he snatch a younger brother’s inheritance? No worries: the law has that covered. Changing gender “does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and (b) does not affect the devolution of any property”. Phew.

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

m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsvQQFx-dRI

This thread was about the FA egregiously ignoring women and girls for their changing room policy even though it would seem the exceptions in the Equality Act would have allowed them to provide single sex changing, especially without a GRC. ( Lady Haldane’s judgement would seem to say a transwoman with a with a GRC must be allowed access.)

Stonewall, The FA and Womens football
@@respectmysex 27/07/2022 20:55

Apologies if I've missed this, but I've not seen a thread tackling this issue.Z

*Stonewall and their rainbow laces campaign is pushed by The FA across the mens and womens game.^

*Stonewall tweeting support for every England womens football match, flogging their rainbow armbands.^

And The FA Trans Inclusion policy very clearly stating:

*Trans doesn't have to be medical, it includes anyone who socially transitions only, or simply identifies as a cross dresser.^

Trans players can play on the team their gender identity matches.

Showers, changing rooms and toilets should be accessible based on their self identified gender.

"Some trans women may be happy to change or shower in open facilities alongside other women" "It is good practice to ask a trans person what would work best for them"

^ Players aged 18 and under
The Fa allows mixed competition for players aged 18 and under, and boys and girls can play football together on the same team^

any trans person in this age range is able to play on whichever team they feel suits them best, whether that’s boys, girls or mixed

www.thefa.com/-/media/files/pdf/the-fa-2015-16/transpeople-in-football-guide.ashx?la=en

m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsvQQFx-dRI

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

Trans players can play on the team their gender identity matches.

There is absolutely no such fucking thing as a sports team, or a toilet, or a prison, or a rape crisis group, which "matches your gender identity".

Your gender identity is completely imaginary.

It is what the rest of us call "having a personality", or would, if we had personalities that revolved around performing certain regressive stereotypes, which most of us don't.

I don't have a gender identity. Nor do most people.

Saying that [trans] people should be allowed to play on a team or use a toilet that "matches their gender identity" is simply a fancy way of saying that they should be allowed to play on a team or use a toilet which is supposed to be for the opposite sex, for literally no reason other than because they want to, and none of the rest of us are allowed to have a problem with that.

This is particularly wrong in so many ways:
"Some trans women may be happy to change or shower in open facilities alongside other women"
"It is good practice to ask a trans person what would work best for them"

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

Who cares what actual women are happy with though, eh?

Actual women being nothing more than props and no one gives a fuck if they're happy, or whether they have to immediately leave the area. That whole exclusionary inclusion that's actually plain male rights activism.

I'd say it's male supremacist activism, since none of the things they are demanding are actually rights.

The Sex Matters Memo
Welcome to our weekly roundup on sex and gender

-Sex Matters responds to government statement on trans-identified prisoners

Sex Matters responds to MoJ

No male prisoners should be housed in women's prisons

Sex Matters has written a comprehensive response to the Ministry of Justice’s announcement that men who identify as women will no longer be housed in women’s prisons if they have male genitalia or have committed sexual or violent crimes.

Our view is that no male prisoners should be housed in women’s prisons at all, regardless of whether they have convictions for violent or sexual offences, whether they have had surgery on their genitals, or whether they have a gender-recognition certificate.

^In order to provide a humane and safe environment, in particular for female prisoners, respecting their privacy and dignity, and complying with international standards, it is necessary to house male and female prisoners separately*.

The latest change by the Ministry of Justice finally brings the rights and interests of female prisoners into some focus. However, it is notable that the prison service’s policy on searching in prisons has gone in a different direction: a new policy issued in October 2022 shifted the criteria about who searches who from being based on anatomy to being based on “legal sex” (that is, having a gender-recognition certificate).

It is wrong of the prison service
to have a policy on searching based on “legal” sex (i.e the opposite sex with a GRC).

That would mean a female officer searching a male who is identifying as a woman (who may well not have had surgery); and a male officer searching a woman who identifies as a man (but who would still be a vulnerable female in male hands).

It is very important that a humane solution is found for officers and trans prisoners alike. This policy as it stands is really an outrage all round.

Please look at this if you haven’t yet to get the primacy of biological sex in the law clarified:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3
Then write to your MP using this template as a guide but adding your own words if you can.
sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-your-mp-about-the-petition/

I don't think this is far off topic; I've just seen on social media that various women's groups were invited to an event at Number 10 on IWD and apparently one of those groups was Cysters.
Cysters advocate for 'trans inclusive' feminism and against gendered language for sex based issues. Their Facebook page is much more open about that than their website.
I don't suppose Sex Matters or Fair Play or any other GC group got an invite?

Thank you for sharing the Sex Matters roundup.

Why is the obvious solution just that any trans prison officer or police officer (if they're still called that this week) does not do searches. End of. They just don't do that particular duty.

Which links to my earlier point: a male who kicks off about their right to intimately handle a non consenting female and use her body and forced access for their own purposes - is not a male who should be allowed anywhere near this situation. This is legalised abuse.

.nilsmousehammer · Today 12:19
Why is the obvious solution just that any trans prison officer or police officer (if they're still called that this week) does not do searches. End of. They just don't do that particular duty.

I had understood it as a trans prisoner with a GRC being searched by a person of the opposite biological sex.

Did I have that the wrong way round?

It would be wrong either way
though.

But not obliged to, that's the issue

But in most situations would it not be discrimination? Given that 98% of sex offenders are men and 88% of victims are women then surely providing eg mixed sex dormitories places women at greater risk than men and thereby discriminating against them?

It's not about trans police officers, it's about the person being searched.

What do you do if a trans woman doesn't consent to being searched by a male police officer, but the female police officers don't feel comfortable carrying out a search on a male suspect?

I don't know but what seems to happening in practice is that organisations are looking to avoid the costs and publicity of a trans person bringing a discrimination case
I don't get it either