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.......

I wonder whether a fine, carrying scream would go down well?

Well done Emma. I need to do a bit of gardening. Here's hoping that David Lloyd is run by sensible business people as opposed to insane TRA ideologues. If the former, credible legal action and the threat of all that publicity, which would definitely alienate their naice prosperous clientele (hands up anyone who would like their 11-year old daughter to share a communal changing room with a naked man. Anyone?). I hope they will settle rapidly and introduce single sex changing rooms.

I think it would @Igmum we used to react to men in these spaces by shouting loudly, screaming blue murder, it's about time we returned to that. Enough is enough!

It's not just the not wanting your 11 year old daughter in a room with a strange naked male body, it's the NOT KNOWING THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN.

It's the LYING.

By not being clear, by saying it's 'mens / womens or male / female' when they KNOW for the majority they'll think this means sex not gender and not telling any of their customers this in fact means mixed sex, you don't even get to choose.

Agree - and if Emma makes this clear to every David Lloyd customer in the country there might be a few more people objecting.

Is it just me or does anyone else suspect some of the ploppers on these threads type with one hand while their other hand does some furtive, sweaty exploration inside their tracksuit bottoms? Because it's so very exciting for them telling us wimmin what's what over and over ad nauseum 🙄

They all have the same right to sue that Emma had......

You may very well say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

It's crude but I expect this is true of some of our fly by scolders....

That needed a sensitivity filter!

I 'thanked' that comment. But also

ugh.

Heard about this after I'd allocated all my crowdfunding cash last month, I'll be donating in future though.

Whatever interpretation you (or more likely Sex Matters) came up with from FWS2 is indirect conflict with AEA vs EHRC and the statutory code:

If a service provider provides single or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

it’s the exceptions in the EqA which allow transgender people to be excluded, not whether they have a GRC.

Can we just have a groundhog day thread somewhere on exactly what the EqA does/does not/might/ say?

Then this repetitive tedious conversation can run to its heart's content.

I think a child needs to sue, then there would be real results. No matter what a parent agrees to in joining an organisation and their policy, all children should have a basic right to feel safe about their own body.

DadJoke: "It's not discriminatory to not exclude trans women from women's changing rooms."

If you think of it from a child's point of view, I don't see how a child could consent to that.

This is all a bit wi spa really isn't it!

Dad joke thinks that it's a- ok for a man who says he is a trans woman to be in a changing room with our daughters.

We don't.

Dad joke is a bloody joke. Decent males don't want to make women and young girls uncomfortable.

So I had a look at what dadjoke is referring to and, surprise, it is not what they said.

The argument from AEA is that the guideline from the EHRC was not clear enough and service providers were told that they should always include anyone according to their gender identity. The EHRC said their guidelines were clear and that people could be excluded based on their sex regardless of their gender identity. That is where the proportionate exclusion comes in. The EHRC said it couldn't be held accountable for service providers getting it wrong. The judge agree with the EHRC.

Here is what EHRC said in its skeleton argument about these documents:
“… insofar as the AEA’s primary objection is to guidance suggesting trans-persons must be allowed to access the SSS of their acquired gender, that is directly inconsistent with the COP. As set out below, the COP makes clear, in terms, that trans-persons can be excluded from a service where that is justified, and, indeed, the EHRC has taken steps to bring that to the attention of service-providers whose guidance erroneously suggests trans-persons must always be permitted to use the SSS of their acquired gender irrespective of the needs of, or detriment to, others. A striking feature of the present litigation is that, if the AEA or others affected have identified guidance or practices of other public or private bodies’ that does, in fact, reflect incorrect statements of law, it is not clear why they are not being pursued. Instead, a claim has been brought in relation to the EHRC’s COP which simply does not contain the alleged errors.”
So service providers can exclude based on sex and anyone claiming this is not in accordance to the law, is incorrect. I am now at a loss why dadjoke keeps referencing a judgment that supports exclusion of transwomen from womens spaces. Isn't dadjoke on the side of transwomen?

I think, for dadjoke, it’s more about not being on the side of women.

So I had a look at what dadjoke is referring to and, surprise, it is not what they said.

Yeah, we know

I am trying to prioritise my energy towards people who aren't deliberately posting in bad faith.

You are incorrect in your understanding of the equality act single sex exemption. The exemption allows all biological males even those with a grc to be excluded, it does NOT allow the exclusion of transmen as they are female and as such could NOT be excluded from the female spaces if they have a grc under the single sex exemption. It would be legal to exclude transmen from male single sex spaces under the exemption but it would not be legal to exclude transwomen from male single sex spaces under the exemption.
Basically what the act says is that both men and women can exclude people of the opposite sex from certain spaces regardless of how they identify or whether they have a grc or not its about biology not feelings/identity

@sanluca it is precisely what the judgement said. I quoted it up thread. Trans women CAN be excluded if it’s LAP they do not have to be. The EHRC guidance which was unsuccessfully challenged said exactly this:

If a service provider provides single or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Ok, so DL could if they wanted to provide single sex services and exclude male people, including transwomen, from the womens changing rooms. The fact is they state that they have womens changing rooms which most people will assume is single sex, but in fact they have mixed sex changing rooms, means they are in breach of contract.

Surely a bloke experiencing imaginary girlyfeelz should be getting his kit off with the other blokes.

Seems odd, it isn't cheap is it and quite apart from the trans issue I would want a cubicle, I've no desire to strip off in front of you or to see you stripping off in front of me. Surely cubicles are a pretty basic requirement.?

Dadjoke, as you seem to be a dad and a bloke and have a issue with what the women are stating

Do you think men should be in changing rooms with women and young girls?

Ive dug