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.......

It’s like the poster on the Caroline Farrow threads.

Got my spade out and will be notifying all my gardeners. Thanks to PPs for the link.

Really hope she wins, this is so important.

fully support their right to use men's single sex spaces under the EqA.

They don't have this right under the EA. It does not govern access to the toilets of the opposite sex. The single sex exceptions apply to everyone without a GRC as per Haldane. It's not legitimate to allow some legal men into a female space and not others, as they are relying on the SSE to exclude any men at all.

Biological females will have no rights left at all in 10 years time (if not sooner)

But don't forget, the males who are 'legally female' will be A-OK!

Spooky isn't it?

There's a certain kind of man who takes his duty to inform the ladies super seriously.

I know perfectly well what the thread is about, but I can’t see any grounds for a suit. Hardy said “discrimination” but that’s vague.

@Ereshkigalangcleg Haldane confirmed the status quo and confirmed in law that trans women with a GRC are of the female sex in law. FWS lost. I mean, even FPW acknowledge that trans women can only be excluded for LAP.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

Haldane confirmed the status quo and confirmed in law that trans women with a GRC are of the female sex in law.

Yes @DadJoke as I acknowledged, which is why I brought it up. Why are you pretending I didn't say that? Please engage with my substantive point, that most of the men you call "trans women" don't have a GRC and are considered men under the EA?

The single sex exceptions apply to everyone without a GRC as per Haldane.

I'm not sure why you appear to believe that women's privacy, dignity and safety can't constitute a legitimate aim. And excluding men is proportionate in many circumstances.

I am sure why

That is why we have any single sex exceptions which permit the exclusion of any men at all. You don't appear to grasp this, but the deeply dishonest nature of your engagement with women on this issue makes me question whether you are posting in any kind of even handed, good faith way.

Saw a man in a wig in a towel in the women's changing rooms in Edinburgh. Two other women clocked him, were shocked, we all looked at each other and he smiled as he sat and watched the women. I felt really uncomfortable.
I don't want to complain because Edinburgh is so captured by gender ideology that I know the staff would just think I'm a horrible middle aged terf.
Delighted that DL are being taken to task for this.

Unfortunately there are some mums taking their sons into the female changing rooms and they are not being told it's rude to stare at women undressing.
I won't complain because DL Edinburgh have a really horrible misogynistic manager who allows men to intimidate women.

She has every right to bring a case of indirect discrimination. If you offer a service to females and then as result of your policy it prevents some females access (eg because of allowing bio males in) then that is ID. The opposite way round can also be brought by a TW if they were denied access - it works both ways. Either could bring cases. It’s up the courts to decide. What DL will have to do is justify their lack of making their policy known and very likely why they have not introduced the SSE exemptions considering there are grounds to do so based on privacy, dignity, etc. What makes it difficult for DL is that they have alternative changing rooms in place. At the AEA v EHRC the judge said that it was up to service users to bring cases against service providers and this is what she is doing.

• exceptions not exemptions

Haldane confirmed the status quo and confirmed in law that trans women with a GRC are of the female sex in law.

But only some of the time. Haldane and Dorrian confirmed that the GRC does not always mean they are the female sex in law - not even within the EA.

I’m a member too and i remember a female staff member coming round the female changing 3 different times to warn the women there that a male worker would be coming through soon so that they could ensure they were dressed. But now it seems they don’t mind a man being present as long as he says he is a women

isn there an adult only area in the female changing room? There is in ours

Didn't this case arise because the claimant wanted to cancel without penalty/receive a refund and public acknowledgement, when she found out that DL doesn't provide women's changing rooms, which is a material disadvantage to her that she was not warned about? So it's a contract case, but will have to bring in equality law. I guess they can't just pay her off because of all the other members who would have the same cause of action.

Yes, that’s my understanding. DL are notoriously hardball about people trying to wriggle out of contracts.

Not at my DL.

lifeturnsonadime · Yesterday 15:18

Of course they are not trans exclusive. Trans people can still go. They can change in the rooms that match their sex class.

Well, of course, you are right. It's a typical piece of truth-twisting, exactly the same as the ones who claim to be prevented from participating in sports.

Thank you all for the feedback. I agree I do need to be clearer about my claims (noted!).

My case is for Indirect Discrimination on the grounds of my Sex and Gender Critical Beliefs.

and

Breach of Contract, for being led to believe our changing rooms were single-sex.

I do not believe a man can become a woman.

I believe woman and girls are particularly disadvantaged by the presence of a man (irrespective of gender identity) when either party may be in a state of undress.

I believe a service provider must be transparent about the services they provide, in order that customers can make informed decisions.

Best wishes
Emma