Tedious. Self ID has never been law in the UK. Single sex spaces and services have always been lawful. Excluding members of the opposite sex has always been lawful hence services have been lawfully provided for men and women separately for years (eg. GirlGuiding, WI, etc). #DarlingtonNurses #UKSC
True. But the query was in response to idea SP already won before..
From my understanding (I am not employment lawyer) EA is for service providers. The Workplace Regs 1992 is for employers responsibility to employees. If staff and public use same toilet, then workplace regs apply.
The statutory regulations for employers to provide single sex changing rooms and toilets…
What? A tribunal was appropriate for everyone? One party is the claimant (SP) and one is the respondent (NHS Fife)…
Different for employers/employees.
The Workplace Regs 1992. Specifically toilets and changing rooms for employees.
That is what her KC is exploring. Whether she was treated fairly in relation to SNHS policy.
Who’s retaliating?
SP is the claimant. She is taking NHS Fife to tribunal for harassment for allowing a male into the F CR. NHS investigated her conduct in relation to the incident and patient safety allegations and found she has no case to answer.
Dr Upton is male under the law, albeit self-ids as female. It appears that NHS Fife managers failed to consider that. The inquiry into LL is showing that NHS managers failed to safeguard appropriately and more harm and death occurred as a result. Sandie Peggie is not responsible for either.
Average male punch power is 162% greater than female.
Sex testing matters in boxing. Women deserve fair and safe sport.
Men punching women in the face shouldn’t be an Olympic event.
#worldboxing
Women’s sport, spaces, associations and positive actions for women are for women.
The clue is in the name.
If you need special permission or sympathy from other women to get in, it likely means you shouldn’t be in there. #UKSC #FWS
Nicola wasn’t bothered about women’s lives being unliveable when Isla Bryson, a convicted rapist, was moved to the female prison estate on the back of unlawful self ID policies. And still isn’t.
Trans men (women with pc of GR) are lawfully excluded from men spaces as these are single sex. They may be lawfully excluded from some female spaces if their presence (overtly male) would be unfair or distressing to other women (eg. DA services or testosterone in female sports).
If they are not taking testosterone they can play on a woman’s or mixed team. If they are taking testosterone, they can play on a mixed team. What are you objecting to? Fairness and safety for women?
Erm now. The Supreme Court ruled on this too. If women have taken testosterone, they can be lawfully excluded. The purpose is safety and fairness.
Yes, but they still lost in the lower courts. Either way, they got ahead of UK equality law. And we are seeing the same thing with the Scottish Borders school toilets.
The law is the same. The Equality Act 2010. Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
Gender Recognition Act was 2004 I think.
None of them have changed.
We don’t all agree about single sex spaces. Hence the thread. A whole host of people are upset at single sex spaces excluding people of the opposite sex, with or without a GRC, and want it based on self ID. And suggest it was previously the law.
I’m aware of why FWS went to the Supreme Court. They lost in 2 lower courts. The Scottish government argued that men with a GRC were women for the F 50% quota.
The Equality Act hasn’t change. There would needed to have been a new act of parliament.
No, the ruling did not change that. The organisations now reviewing their policies makes it clear that the law didn’t change. There are exemptions in the GRA where sex is not changed for all purposes. Also, the Scottish GRR was not assented into law as it went beyond UK equality law.
I’m not embarrassed. I knew what the laws were. Single sex spaces have always been allowed. It’s always been lawful to exclude people of the opposite sex, and still is, trans or not. I’m not printing a card to say it’s a breach of my human rights.
There is no evidence it is a reinterpretation. And if they do, they do. One suspects they won’t, and if they wished the GRR for Scotland could have been assented. They would need hours and hours of parliamentary debate like it took. But who knows.
You have a weird interpretation of harassment.
Thank you for the correction. Did it help? Either way, the point stands. Men with or without a GRC can be lawfully excluded from women’s spaces and vice versa. That is the law in the UK and always has been. The UKSC ruling did not change it. If it has been misinterpreted- look elsewhere.
Gender recognition is a protected characteristic in the EA 2010, with or without a certificate. Both laws need to be read together. Equality Act is for services and service providers.
In what way? Cos I think you are trying to argue that the UK Supreme Court ruling is somehow incorrect? And not that lobby groups and the Scottish Government, in particular, got ahead of the law? And now organisations are having to review their policies.
