The examples in the statutory code are v. odd.
They are coy about crucial bits of info
Like here. Was it a women's health spa? In which case yes it is legitimate to exclude members of the opposite sex
If it was a mixed sex spa why does the example only ref women complaining?
They are coy about crucial bits of info
Like here. Was it a women's health spa? In which case yes it is legitimate to exclude members of the opposite sex
If it was a mixed sex spa why does the example only ref women complaining?
And this one - a female who has no surgery or medication but passes for male (is the EHRC on drugs?)
But it's a non threatening example.
Why no make it about a male who has no surgery and lives "as a woman"
Would be covered by S7. But should they be in the female spa??
But it's a non threatening example.
Why no make it about a male who has no surgery and lives "as a woman"
Would be covered by S7. But should they be in the female spa??
And this one. A clothing store has a women's changing room . So it excludes men. Men can't just say "but there are cubicles!" They'd still be turned away presumably... So the cubicles don't make it ok
There is so much information missing from these case examples.
Can the clothing store turn away a man who wants to try on ladies underwear?
"there are cubicles!"
Women know why men wear women's underwear. They don't need to be forced to participate in a fetish
Code is coy
Can the clothing store turn away a man who wants to try on ladies underwear?
"there are cubicles!"
Women know why men wear women's underwear. They don't need to be forced to participate in a fetish
Code is coy
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
