Emma Hardy suing David Lloyd Gyms over trans policy

[flyingbuttress43]

Believed to be the first time in the UK that a service organisation is being sued
(as opposed to cases being taken to employment tribunals ). The case is likely to come to court late this year or early next year. She is also active in her home area of York in establishing what exactly is local NHS/councils policies on the issue and warning them of the potential risks of their trans inclusive policies. NB: she says she was told by the head of biology at York University that sex was on a spectrum.......

DLL do not have a policy
therefore can be deemed to be following EHRC statutory guidance
and the signs on their doors
that say male and female

I'm curious. Have any legal cases so far raised the question of single-sex labelling of dual/mixed-sex spaces, or the marketing of venues as having single-sex spaces when there are not, as contravening advertising standards? Advertising standards may not be relevant here, or may only be a minor legality compared to equalities and human rights law - I'm not a lawyer - however, it does seem really obvious to me from a common-sense point of view that advertising law might be being broken.

The gov.uk website says:

"Marketing and advertising: the law...

Overview
All marketing and advertising must be:

• an accurate description of the product or service
• legal
• decent
• truthful
• honest
• socially responsible (not encouraging illegal, unsafe or anti-social behaviour)

There are regulations that restrict what advertisers can and cannot do. As well as the regulations, there are 2 advertising codes of practice that you need to follow to help you advertise legally. You must describe your product or service accurately..."

The labelling at the site is correct.

At some venues young members of staff feel intimidated to "be kind"
so allow breaches of the Equality Act.

Staff training should be brought into alignment with the law.
Guidance notes should be brought into alignment with the law.
Some providers need to bring their policies into alignment with the law.

The barristers have made enough money out of this already.
Less legal claims please.

Crikey, you've misunderstood the law quite spectacularly.

DadJoke got the wrong end of the stick he uses to beat us wims?

Shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED.

It’s also skin-crawlingly creepy. Man here! In your space telling you how we get to be in your spaces! A Mansplaining and Gaslighting 2 for 1 - at your service!

Since when is "females are naked here" not enough objective reason for males to fuck off?

It seems as though one persistent male poster in the feminist topic seems to have been superseded by another, these days?

Staff training should be brought into alignment with the law.
Guidance notes should be brought into alignment with the law.
Some providers need to bring their policies into alignment with the law.

The barristers have made enough money out of this already.
Less legal claims please.

All those things will not be brought into alignment with the law until the law is clarified and/or publicized. Hence the legal claims. You can bet HR managers everywhere are scrabbling round now they’ve heard the Jo Phoenix judgment. That’s what it takes.

Pretty sure even Bannatyne has said "post op" men can use the ladies changing room.

Either way it shows perfectly can-do vs must-do rules.

No men in gyms!

I think so many institutions are breaking advertising and signage rules. It's a bit like if you write 'tofu' on a food product but really mean 'peanuts' there are people for whom that bit of misinformation is really significant. Food manufacturers don't get to just unilaterally decide 'tofu' now means 'peanuts'.

Companies should not get to unilaterally change the meaning of words and if it gets into a courtroom I am sure the understanding of 99.99% of the population - which still is that 'womens/ female' means XX humans and mens/male' means XY humans will be upheld.

It is lying to customers and acting fraudulently if what these signs means is not clarified if it does not mean common English usage.

You can find crowdfunding if you Google democracythree Emma Hardy David Lloyd

@RoyalCorgi i don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse, but trans woman may be excluded if it’s legitimate and proportionate. It’s up to the provider. If it’s not LAP, they can’t.

The way in which these gyms are deceptive is that they fail to mention in their T&Cs what their policy is. In this sense I agree with Hardy.

Just for anyone who hasnt seen them before, here are some legitimate and proportionate examples of single sex services and provisions where transwomen (even with a GRC) can be excluded, as stated in the EQA2010 -

'These exceptions would allow:

• a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;

• a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;

• a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;

• separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;

• separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;

• a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.'

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

It is a legal requirement not to discriminate on the basis of sex, which they are doing by allowing men in the female changing room.

I hope she wins.

I might be wrong but was it something to do with not being allowed to be released from her contract early and she wanted to leave because of the potential men in the changing room scenario

I have no idea of the strength of her case, but I find it ironic that people who tell dad jokes are typically very aware of the difference between the two sexes and how to tell who belongs to which sex.

She's got a £25K goal and is currently on just over £8K.

I suggest that you reread the Haldane appeal ruling as it specifically says that men who self id as women (ie no GRC) are still legally male and have no right to nor the expectation of the right to access female single sex spaces.
So as you see the gym are already breaking discrimination laws by allowing any male who claims to be a woman into the female facilities, and that's before we get to the proportionality of banning those men who have a GRC.
Also please note that it's men/transwomen that are the problem not women/transmen who are the problem and must be excluded from the female/women's facilities.

I suggest that you reread the Haldane appeal ruling as it specifically says that men who self id as women (ie no GRC) are still legally male and have no right to nor the expectation of the right to access female single sex spaces

Good luck on trying to use reason, logic and evidence with DadJoke. You'd have more success banging your head against a brick wall.

Once you start letting a subset of males identify into female spaces, you are discriminating against the remainder set of males. It's a lot simpler in cases where single-sex is desired, to be very clear and strict about it.

Was Peter Whittle born yesterday?

I think the stronger claim is that you are indirectly discriminating against women as they are far more likely than men to be unable to use a changing room that has access to the opposite sex.