"Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment
The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the prot…
"Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment
The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.
Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.
Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"
As I understand it, the NHS trust in that story can exclude trans-identified males from female toilets if it is for a legitimate reason. I believe it is legitimate to not want men in a space where women feel vulnerable. There are also possible implications for certain religious people be where they would be unable to use that space.
For all the guff they spout about inclusion and being kind, it never seems to extend to males about other males.
Thanks Loretta, that's really comprehensive. Seems to be wildly open to interpretation. There needs to be utter clarity on this. Unfortunately I can only see the clarity going one way. Especially with Lord Herbert's influence on Government.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm
"Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment
The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.
Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.
Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"
As I understand it, the NHS trust in that story can exclude trans-identified males from female toilets if it is for a legitimate reason. I believe it is legitimate to not want men in a space where women feel vulnerable. There are also possible implications for certain religious people be where they would be unable to use that space.
For all the guff they spout about inclusion and being kind, it never seems to extend to males about other males.
Thanks Loretta, that's really comprehensive. Seems to be wildly open to interpretation. There needs to be utter clarity on this. Unfortunately I can only see the clarity going one way. Especially with Lord Herbert's influence on Government.
It seems so many of them are afraid of the online backlash for simply supporting women's rights and using a clause they are legally entitled to do.