E & D online training

[NellieTheElephant1]

Currently doing mandatory online equality and diversity training for work. The section on the 9 protected characteristics, under gender reassignment states:

'The Equality Act defines gender reassignment as:
"Where a person has proposed, started or completed a process to change his or her sex." It goes on to define this as ‘being or becoming a transexual person.
Times have changed since the act was written and fewer trans people identify with the term transsexual in our current society. It should also be noted that gender reassignment is usually understood to be a medical term but under the Equality Act, it refers to gender reassignment as a protected characteristic and can also refer to social transition. You do not need to be under the supervision of a doctor to qualify.
Under this part of the act, trans colleagues are protected to be able to access single sex facilities that align with their gender identity regardless of transition.
A legal case in 2020 (Taylor vs Jaguar Land Rover) also demonstrated that non-binary people are also offered protection under this part of the act.

Is the wording I have bolded factually correct?

No, it is not. Self-identification does not give you access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

This is the introductory text to the government consultation on single-sex spaces guidance: "The Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking examples of policy or guidance in which public bodies – or organisations that advise public and private organisations - wrongly suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender."

This sex matters guidance might also help: https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/guidance-for-service-providers-on-single-sex-services/ It states: The recent judgment in the For Women Scotland appeal in the Scottish Court of Session confirmed that a transgender person who does not have a GRC remains “of the sex assigned to them at birth and therefore would have no prima facie right to access services provided for members of the opposite sex”.

The ruling in the fpfws appeal against the Scottish government gender representation Bill says clearly that no male who is legally male (ie no GRC) has the right or the expectation of the right to enter female single sex spaces, services or provisions. Also the jaguar case was only a lower crt ruling and does not set precedent unlike the appeal crt ruling. What they are advocating is a clear case of sex discrimination

As above. A good example are the nurses in Darlington. They are bringing a claim of sex discrimination on the basis of the NHS policy of allowing a male (TW) into their changing room.

The comparator for a trans person is a non trans person of the same biological sex. Therefore, you can't say "We will promote John and not Jane because Jane is trans".

The comparator is NOT a non trans person of the opposite biological sex. i.e. it's irrelevant whether Jane the trans woman has access to the same facilities as Sarah the biological woman.

What you have hightlighted is wrong.

If you refer them to the new guidance referenced in this thread makes it clear.

Not saying Sex Matters haven't got it right, but as this is the EHRC I would have thought (hope) that any training provider would take notice.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5120880-new-ehrc-guidelines-women-only-jobs

Thank you to everyone who has replied. This training is from NHS England and I have since seen another MM thread on this topic from earlier this year. I will see if there is a way to feedback to them (but won't hold my breath for my changes to the training material🙄)

Hope you get somewhere.

Please do update when and if you get any where.

Good luck.

It's possible they haven't been following changes to the guidance and legal cases either genuinely, or they are deliberately ignoring. The Jaguar Landrover example isn't legally binding, it's just a one off tribunal. JLR were onto a sticky wicket, the claimant was clearly MTF under the EA and had been bullied, and so they didn't appeal. It shouldn't be considered case law. The question of whether "non binary" people are included is not settled.

So this does seem like it was written by activists.