Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

The interim guidance makes it pretty clear. Trans identifying women are women. They should not be excluded from women's spaces unless their are exceptional circumstances eg like in the example, in which case it should be ensured that there is still provision made for them. Looks quite straightforward.

 

[Psamathe]

.

The interim guidance makes it pretty clear. Trans identifying women are women. They should not be excluded from women's space

Me confused. From https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...ctical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex

Ian

 

[monkers]

In this respect, the EHRC says, "a trans woman is a biological man" and "a trans man is a biological woman".

The guidance also states that "in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities".

When asked to clarify this, the EHRC pointed to a section of the Supreme Court ruling stating that trans men could be excluded from women's facilities "where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken" in the context of a women-only service.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw9qjeq8po

In other words, the EHRC are now saying it is reasonable to discriminate against people due their appearance, even though discrimination against people due to perception in unlawful in the case of toilets provided as a public service, but illegal in criminal law where they are provided in the workplace.

So that's brought a lot of clarity to the law then.

 

[monkers]

 

[AuroraSaab]

Me confused. From https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...ctical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

Ian

If you don't like services and facilities being separated by sex you should advocate for unisex 3rd spaces.

Do you not think men are entitled to single sex spaces and services when appropriate?

 

[monkers]

If you don't like services and facilities being separated by sex you should advocate for unisex 3rd spaces.

Do you not think men are entitled to single sex spaces and services when appropriate?

But you keep saying sex is binary, so how can it require third spaces?

Just let anyone in who looks like they might be a trans man, after all we can always tell if their chromosomes are XX or XY can't we?

Maybe CX Randy can train you up in his 'female skin tone' recognition skills?

 

[classic33]

If you don't like services and facilities being separated by sex you should advocate for unisex 3rd spaces.

Do you not think men are entitled to single sex spaces and services when appropriate?

Why don't you do that, then you'll be able to use the 4th space set aside, not the 3rd.

I draw your attention to post 17,220.
I enquired, and got shown where the toilets I should be using were. A case of be careful what you wish for.

 

[monkers]

Karen White before the Supreme Court judgment.

''I'm in the right place as I'm a trans woman''.

Karen White since the Supreme Court judgment.

''I'm in the right place as I'm a trans man, and here's my amended birth certificate to prove it.''

How has the Supreme Court ruling made society safer for women?

 

[monkers]

Why don't you do that, then you'll be able to use the 4th space set aside, not the 3rd.

I draw your attention to post 17,220.
I enquired, and got shown where the toilets I should be using were. A case of be careful what you wish for.

Shouldn't there be 5 toilets? Equality rules would say that if cis people have single sex toilets then trans people should too. The result will be that service providers will stop providing toilets because legally they most often don't have to.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Trans identifying women are women and are allowed in female spaces .... because they are women. The EHRC guidance makes clear that this is the case, with the exception of unusual circumstances such as the one outlined in the guidance. It also says they should not be left without facilities.

We're getting in a mess now.

In my mind a trans identifying woman is my colleague Barry now Heather.

Or is it my staff trainer who appears male but was born female?

I seriously doubt you'd have a clue of the latter's history; I only do 'cos I met them while in transition.

 

[classic33]

Shouldn't there be 5 toilets? Equality rules would say that if cis people have single sex toilets then trans people should too. The result will be that service providers will stop providing toilets because legally they most often don't have to.

That's the "be careful what you wish for" covers.

 

[monkers]

We're getting in a mess now.

In my mind a trans identifying woman is my colleague Barry now Heather.

Or is it my staff trainer who appears male but was born female?

I seriously doubt you'd have a clue of the latter's history; I only do 'cos I met them while in transition.

If your friend Heather has a GRC then under the Equality Act she is a woman for all purposes except that she has lost her right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex discrimination as a woman. She is now in the position of having to declare the characteristic not of being 'trans identifying', but having undergone 'gender reassignment' to meet the legal duty of the EqA, and then in contradiction to to her Article 8 convention rights.

 

[monkers]

The person sitting next to me on the sofa is saying the following.

When the EHRC issues guidelines, they are not legally binding and have no force. If it was the case that the EHRC has the legal competence to write guidelines that are legally binding, then this guidance would still not be since they would not be underpinning anything currently in the law. This is true because nothing in law states that only 'biological men' can use toilets with male denoting signage, and likewise that only 'biological women' can use toilets with female denoting signage.

The EHRC do not have the legal power to provide guidance on workplace toilets as they come under the perview of the Health & Safety Executive.

This guidance has the very real potential of causing service providers and employers of breaking law, which for employers has potential to lead to criminal proceedings.

 

[Bromptonaut]

If your friend Heather has a GRC then under the Equality Act she is a woman for all purposes except that she has lost her right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex discrimination as a woman. She is now in the position of having to declare the characteristic not of being 'trans identifying', but having undergone 'gender reassignment' to meet the legal duty of the EqA, and then in contradiction to to her Article 8 convention rights.

To be clear she's a former colleague. We're not at daggers but I would describe her as a professional acquaintance rather than a friend.

 

[monkers]

To be clear she's a former colleague. We're not at daggers but I would describe her as a professional acquaintance rather than a friend.

Apologies for the assumption.