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.......

Good luck Emma

Very best of luck to you Emma.

A question I'd also be asking, with all due innocence, is where women are supposed to go if they are unable due to belief, culture, disability or trauma to use a mixed sex space?

Or is the gym exclusionary towards those protected characteristics, and only selectively 'inclusive'? In which case this should be transparent and clearly labelled as such.

Obviously women cannot be expected to disclose such very sensitive data to staff - and who on the staff is qualified to pick up the pieces of the issues that such a disclosure to a stranger in a public place may cause - and it must be assumed the gym hasn't thought through how they might be responsible for receiving such sensitive data and storing it because that is a minefield of its own.

As you cannot tell or require women to state whether they require single sex facilities for those protected characteristics, the responsibility (unless you have chosen to openly exclude women of those groups) is to provide this alongside a range of other facilities so that women can select the one that works for them. It's rather like a GRC works.

Why yes, you will have the occasional male who on principle won't use a mixed sex women's space and will want, for his own reasons, to use the female only space to prove that there is no territory that he cannot control. However it is then the responsibility of the gym to police that boundary and if necessary warn individual members that they have the alternative of a sex based space or a mixed sex space, they do not need and cannot reasonably expect to have all the spaces, and by so doing exclude some women. And a member that is unwilling to respect the needs and access of other members can then choose between doing so or having their membership rescinded.

Yes, everyone will be able to tell.

good luck Emma 🌹

Good luck Emma and thank you.

I've just popped in on my lunch break expecting to have an article with the evidence of Bannatyne saying his gyms are trans exclusive to read but it seems Dad has forgotten to send it.

Best of luck, @HardyEM

A question I'd also be asking, with all due innocence, is where women are supposed to go if they are unable due to belief, culture, disability or trauma to use a mixed sex space?

A good question. Supposing they had a sign outside, saying "Sorry, we do not cater for Muslim women" (which, it seems, they don't. And obv, Muslim is only an example, there are others). That wouldn't stand for five minutes, would it? And rightly so.

That interpretation is in conflict with the AEA vs EHRC decision and the statutory guidance I posted up-thread. I can see nothing in FWS2 which supports this. Please can you point at your evidence for this assertion?

Just seems helpful at this point.

It does @Froodwithatowel

Dorrian:

”whether a person is male or female for the purposes of the EqA is to be decided by reference to their biological sex, save where the individual has a GRC, in which case they are to be treated (for these purposes) as though their biological sex corresponded to their acquired gender.” “

Interestingly in the T&Cs it says Children aged eight or over must use the men’s or women’s changing rooms, according to their sex (or a family changing room, if one is available).

Well done Emma. You are so calm and spoke so well. I have done some gardening :)

I remember a woman last year telling us how DL at Kingston Upon Thames were allowing a man in to their women's changing rooms. He was lounging about the poolside in a bikini top and then would go in to the women's changing rooms and sit and look at them while he changed in to his male clothing. Utterly perverted.

Good luck @HardyEM

i'm amazed David Lloyd haven't tried to settle.

Do they really want to advertise to the world that adult men are allowed to come in the female changing rooms when kids are changing, teenage girls and women?

I suspect they have asked advice of a group like Stonewall who have, as per, given them the wrong advice.

Well done, Emma. This assault on women's rights has to stop.

I don't get Dadjoke's reasoning.

The Haldane ruling states that women include women and transwomen with a GRC. So service providers can setup services excluding men (men, transwomen without a GRC and transmen with a GRC). They can also setup services using the allowed exceptions in the EA and exclude men and transwomen with a GRC, and transmen with a GRC, but they have to meet the justifiable aim.

So isn't the situation that as you are not allowed to ask for a GRC, service providers can exclude based on sex and if a transwoman wants in, it is up to the transwoman to demonstrate they have a GRC?. And even then they can be excluded, but you have to be able to justify it.

Sports, changing rooms, prisons and wards can all easily meet that justification and it would be interesting to see what a judge would say if this is challenged.

I am quite enjoying the disclaimer now being used by Stonewall that basically says if you're stupid enough to take their advice without getting it properly checked by legal professionals then whatever happens to you is nothing to do with them.

How long will women continue to support GRCs once the reality of what transwoman means becomes more apparent?

Do people like Dadjoke think, when faced with an obvious male in a place where women get undressed women will really say “oh, probably legally a woman so that’s ok.”

I suspect more women will start to question the inclusion of legal-but-not-biological women especially if they are in spaces their kids need to change.

You probably don't get DadJoke's reasoning because it's all bollocks. Lady Haldane's ruling is completely irrelevant as it doesn't matter whether the transwoman has a GRC or not. They may be excluded under EqA Sch3 Part7 Para28. This is one of the examples of 'a member of the opposite sex for all purposes except when it isn't'.

DadJoke seems to believe that Para 28 isn't applicable because you would need a legitimate and proportionate (LAP) reason and he believes that exclusion isn't LAP.

Para 28 actually requires "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". This requirement isn't exclusive to para 28 but applies to paras 26 and 27 as well so I have no idea why he thinks it's some sort of gotcha.

So the bottom line is:

Is separating people by sex when they are in a state of undress a legitimate aim and, if so, is blanket exclusion of persons of the opposite sex, irrespective of their gender status, a proportionate means of achieving that aim?

I should add that if DLL were to provide third spaces then it would be nailed on proportionate. DLL would need to justify not providing third spaces e.g. lack of space or disproportionate cost for it to be a proportionate means.

Is separating people by sex when they are in a state of undress a legitimate aim and, if so, is blanket exclusion of persons of the opposite sex, irrespective of their gender status, a proportionate means of achieving that aim?

This. But just to clarify, I brought up Haldane in the context of the meaning of single sex spaces, to point out that without a GRC, males have zero legal claim to "female" status for the purposes of SSE.

To exclude "female gender" males with a GRC legally from female only spaces AFAIK requires an act of proportionate discrimination for the legitimate aim of women's safety/privacy/dignity/fair competition etc, on grounds of their gender reassignment.

So I do think it's more complicated in practice when someone has a GRC, and it's why the government advice on for eg police searching protocols tends to suggest that men with a GRC can search women if they are in that role, which obviously affects the human rights of those women, plus has EA implications for the police and policymakers.

These scenarios will have to be tested in court, to get clarity either way, I think.

Sorry meant to quote @JanesLittleGirl

Yes this. By including men who have an inner feminine essence you're excluding many, many more women. Now those women are much more quiet about their exclusion (with exceptions, such as Emma) than the male bodied people who want access to women's spaces. But they're much more numerous, which if anybody bothered to study it we'd have data to support.

Anyway, the only answer is spaces for all, segregated by sex and gender which is the only non discriminatory and fair solution. The only people who this won't please is those whose aim is access to and committing crimes such as flashing in front of unconsenting women and children.

Also a feature of how trans rights activists frame this debate is the way they talk about single sex exceptions as if you have to get some sort of signed off permission to make your space female only, when all that is necessary is designating a female only space/service etc. It's up to anyone who feels excluded to make thejr case for why they have been discriminated against, and the court will decide whether that has occurred based on the facts of the case.

We’ve got to start laughing and pointing, not being embarrassed and discomforted.

Yes! This!

Thanks to 'Debbie' Hayton, we now have more permission to do that (or to throw a Hyacinth Bucket strop about the fetishist in the changing room) without the transphobia police being called.

In changing rooms etc if finding a male of the species somewhere they shouldn't be, no matter their internal womanly feels, I'm all for shouting loudly and causing merry hell about the fact that "THERE'S A MAN IN THE LADIES HELP PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP ME THERE'S A MAN IN THE LADIES CHANGING ROOM!" on repeat very loudly until EVERYONE in the sodding building knows some bloke is getting his rocks off in the women's changing room!