In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex?CMP=share_btn_tw

Like the gendered soul theory?

The current EHRC guidance has not yet been approved by parliament under EqA 2006 s14 and is not statutory. Don't rely on it if you are an employer. It will not be taken into account in an ET or other court case.

Some of the examples, if implemented, are likely to be result in legal challenge.

Rely on the the previous guidance, which is statutory, until such time as the new guidance is approved.

There is no requirement to exclude trans woman from single sex spaces (AEA vs EHRC)
A single sex space does not become mixed sex because a transgender person is in it. (AEA vs EHRC)

"The claimant submits that if a difference of treatment can be justified vis-a-vis birth men in general, then it is inconceivable that it cannot equally be justified vis-à-vis birth men who are transsexual women. On that approach, though, the Equality Act's gender reassignment provisions would in substance provide no protection at all, in the context of an SSS, to transexual persons without a GRC. The claimant points out that what has to be justified under s.19(2)(d) is the PCP in general. So if vis-à-vis men in general it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end, then the same must apply vis-à-vis birth males who are transexual women. Thus, the claimant's approach would place transsexual women without a GRC in the same position for these purposes as all other birth males. That is clearly incompatible with the tenor of the Act, which plainly sets out distinct provisions in s.19 (as applied to gender reassignment) and in Schedule 3 para. 29, which apply to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment: over and above, and separately from, those in paras. 26 and 27 of Schedule 3 relating to sex discrimination."

If a provider choses to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces, they can, but the reason must be legitimate and proportionate and on a case by case basis (current EHRC guidance)

So, you can have rape crisis centre which includes trans women, and one which doesn't.

If you don't respect the pronouns of clients, then you can be dismissed. (Mackereth)

I'd guess you can't be forced to "state your pronouns" or include them in your emails, though that's not been tested.

@DadJoke
Can you clarify something you said please?
If a provider choses to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces, they can, but the reason must be legitimate and proportionate and on a case by case basis (current EHRC guidance)

Where you say on a "case by case basis"(cbcb) could be interpreted as each single sex space on a cbcb , or each person attempting to enter a single sex space on a cbcb, or possibly even both of those interpretations at the same time.

My understanding is that each single sex space could face assessment for legitimacy and proportionallity on a cbcb. Assuming it passed those tests it would then be a single sex space that was allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Just another wee reminder that 'Someone said so on Mumsnet' is not a sensible position to base HR decisions on.

Check EHRC guidance, or check with a qualified solicitor.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

Looking into Mackereth for myself doesn't to me seem to be supporting what's been said above about it.
This article seems quite neutral and unbiased.

"Mackereth's manager met him to discuss the issue and to find out more about his beliefs. However, the doctor became upset. The following day he went home and claimed he'd been suspended. The DWP asked him to confirm if would follow the agreed processes but he said he couldn’t and effectively resigned."

Seems to form the main basis of the result for me. He didn't engage, and lost as a result.

"Mackereth's specific belief was protected, as was his lack of belief in gender ideology. But it said the tribunal had been correct to dismiss his claims. There was no direct discrimination. He had not been 'interrogated' about his beliefs or pressured to renounce them, nor had he been suspended or dismissed because of them. He also hadn't been harassed."

"One wonders if the outcome for Mackereth might have been different if he'd engaged with his managers about how the service could accommodate his beliefs without prejudicing the duties it owed to its service users."

I don't think this is the smoking gun it's being made out to be.

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1803986/employers-insist-staff-use-peoples-preferred-pronouns

No requirement to exclude trans women from women's single sex facilities, does not require employers to include them.

Having single sex toilets in the workplace is and has been the norm to protect the dignity and safety of female and by that I mean biological women. This excludes any males whether they hold a GRC or not.

If trans women do not feel comfortable in male toilets then they may wish to raise this with their employer and ask for alternative provisions which do not impact on female employees.

Obviously this only applies to larger employers many small employers may only have a single facility used by both sexes.

As @ArabellaScott states, do not listen to Dad joke (or anyone on else on here for that matter) for legal advice. Dad Joke in particular has an anti woman agenda.

Yes, with possible exceptions.

It is possible that a legitimate and proportionate reason could apply to all transgender people, for example a trans-excusionary rape crisis centre.

However, in AEA vs EHRC, the judge said:

"Similarly, the statement that a service provider can have a policy, but should apply it on a case-by-case basis, is in my view correct. There may be exceptional circumstances in which an application of an otherwise reasonable policy would not be proportionate. The defendant's example of an urgent approach to an otherwise empty women's hostel in a middle-of-the-night emergency may be an example. Whether or not that is a good example, it is clearly possible that particular circumstances can arise where proportionality requires an exception to be made"

An example might be a sporting body which decides to allow trans girls to play with other girls in the Under 12s category, but not in older categories, or exclude trans women if their hormone levels don't meet the criteria. (I think sport might be a special exception decided exclusively by the sporting bodies, though. so perhaps this isn't a great example.)

@DadJoke is once again using sleight of hand to suggest that allowing women-only spaces to exclude transwomen in some way nullifies the protection of the Act vis-a-vis gender reassignment.

Not so. The Act still requires non-discrimination against transwomen, and this need can be met by providing third spaces (for example). The legitimate and proportionate test does not need to be invoked at all.

This is simply wrong. The current norm is to include transgender people and has
been for decades.

Can you name a single major provider which makes transgender people use toilets based on sex by birth?

@DadJoke
I think there's a bit of a disconnect between the gender critical and the gender identity sides. Beyond very strong disagreement, there's some misconceptions.
example:

It is possible that a legitimate and proportionate reason could apply to all transgender people, for example a trans-excusionary rape crisis centre.

From a gender critical point of view this hypothetical rape crisis centre wouldn't be trans exclusionary, it would be male exclusionary. Females whatever gender they identified as, this includes trans men would be welcome. All males would be excluded, irrespective of their gender identity.
In GC land it is not a trans exclusionary rape crisis centre, it is a male exclusionary rape crisis centre.
The basis for discrimination would not be trans or trans identifying, it would be biological sex. Females welcome, males not.

I was an Employment Solicitor until I had to leave work due to my children's disabilities in 2014. I was a solicitor working in employment law for the introduction of the Equality Act and the advice most certainly was that third spaces should be provided not that trans women should be included in single sex spaces.

Talk of single sex exemptions did not include tw/ with or without a GRC.

I accept that since I left work to look after my kids things have changed (mostly due to the Stonewall effect) . But you are misrepresenting the EquA to your own agenda/ Stonewall agenda.

Your claim that TW have been using Women's single sex spaces in the workplace for decades is a lie.

To the extent that they are now in women's single sex spaces is a result of an overreach / misunderstanding of the provisions of the EquA .

No, having women-only spaces which exclude trans women does not nullify the protection of the act, but it can only be justified if it's legitimate and proportionate. You can't have a women-only book group, exclude trans women, if you pop the trans women next door.

By all means provide case law to the contrary.

"

@lifeturnsonadime you avoided the question.

"Having single sex toilets in the workplace is and has been the norm to protect the dignity and safety of female and by that I mean biological women."

Please give an example of a major provider which exludes trans women from women's toilets. If it's the norm, you shouldn't have any difficulty.

You can't have a women-only book group

This is reminding me of the woman who set up a women-only group that met in her own home, and in the end had to call the police because a transwoman objected to not being allowed into this woman's house and was standing outside causing chaos. I forget the details, unfortunately.

Women are allowed to say no to men.

I don't have a list of which employers follow Stonewall laws and which of them properly understand the provisions of the Equality Act.

Providing single sex toilets for the safety and dignity of female employees is clearly a legitimate and proportionate thing to do and is provided for by the Equality Act, the fact that some employers have been made to believe it is not by Stonewall is irrelevant to the actual law and the fact that this has not been the norm for decades at all, which is what you said in your pp.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/08/13/gender-neutral-toilets-policy-kemi-badenoch/

'A policy announced on Sunday (13 August) as part of the government’s Levelling Up scheme revealed requirements for all new builds to separate male and female toilets, which it argues is to “protect single-sex spaces”.'

Sorry for the Pink News link.

Here's the gov page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets

👏👏👏👏👏

Yes.

Excluding trans women and not trans men is also permitted under the EqA, though a provider could use the "legitimate and proportionate" exception to exclude trans men if they wanted. Likewise the ERCC permits trans men. In the incredibly unlikely event Beira's Place was sued by a trans women, I think that the LAP defence is what they would use (not "we are GC.")

Beiras Place say "The service is offered in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, which permits the provision of single sex services and a single sex staffing policy in various situations where there’s a good reason for them."

I think this is the nearest they will get to saying "we exclude trans women because it's legitimate and proportionate."

I think this is the nearest they will get to saying "we exclude trans women because it's legitimate and proportionate."

-transwomen
+men

@DadJoke
But they don't exclude trans women, they exclude males. They don't care how the males identify. A male who identifies as an attack helecopter would be excluded not because they discriminate againt attack helecopters, but because they discriminate against males.
Gender critical people do not believe in, or subscribe to gender.
A rape crisis centre for females. It's that simple.

ArabellaScott Today 15:51

Check EHRC guidance, or check with a qualified solicitor.

Although it may be best to avoid solicitors from Worknest.

This is a great post and absolutely correct.

@ArabellaScott you've still not answered question, just pointed at government proposals which insist on male and female toilets rather than gender neutral ones, which will have no impact on their legal use by transgender people, as they currently use male and female toilets according to their gender identity.

The current norm, which GC people want to change, is that transgender people use the toilet which matches their own gender.

I will leave it there.

That may possibly be the norm in your circles. I can assure you that in the working class area where I live, it is absolutely not the norm. Here, the norm remains as it has been for decades, that men are expected to use the gents, and women are expected to use the ladies.