Major (positive) change to EA/trans advice

[Oldstyle]

It appears that there's been a change in the official advice given to organisations about how to resolve single-sex vs transwomen inclusion issues. In favour of women's rights to single sex provision. Needs to be shouted about / shared. And failures in compliance need to be challenged.
twitter.com/2010equality/status/1079039059211759623?s=21&fbclid=IwAR0VdGYXiBe_7fw4dJuPQyHBI5gZY4x2WdWdP3nE2PG_ZOH5plyTLuS-x90

Bump

Bump

A move in the right direction. Thanks for posting this.

Bloody hell!

Happy New Year.

I don't understand. Two glasses of wine and very tired - who is this tweeting? Is this someone's interpretation? If so whose?
Don't fully understand what it is saying either.
did I say I was tired?

Great thread.

Is this an official tweet? I was very excited, but now I'm not sure where it's come from.

Who owns the account?

Good news

It looks like it is not an official tweet, but it explains and points you in the direction of the official guidance, so we are on firmer ground when we stand up to orgs misrepresenting our rights as females. Not ideal but better than.

Never seen this account before. Where has this come from?

Equality Act 2010
@2010Equality
·
4h
The Equality Act is really, really clear that having the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" does not mean a person has changed sex. This is the first place where people can get confused. The law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.

It isn't an official EHRC twitter account but links to the official advice as follows:
Certain exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone differently because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance.
Under the Act, the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people who are proposing to go, are undergoing or have undergone (part of) a process of gender reassignment. At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

This seems to be a very useful clarification - and not before time.

pbs.twimg.com/media/DvmliDAWsAAWGB1.jpg

is this definitely true? This is a huge breakthrough if so. It's actually astonishing to see reasonable common sense in a document like this.

I don't know how joined up the government is on this front. If the advice has been changed in this manner maybe it that they are planning on making the process of getting a GRC a lot easier, but at least they've made moves to prevent this from causing Canada-style problems.

The Equality Act is really, really clear that having the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" does not mean a person has changed sex. This is the first place where people can get confused. The law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.

I still don’t get this.

Gender reassignment doesn’t mean someone has changed sex. I get that. That makes sense.

But then ‘the law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.’

That implies a man who has gone through the GRC process is a woman, otherwise why mention the GRC process at all?

People can’t change sex. If the GRC process says they can it is a lie and it invalidates sex based rights.

I can’t see how sex based rights can ever be compatible with the GRC process. I can see that GRC makes it more difficult for opportunists but the very existence of GRC makes sex based rights impossible to maintain.

Aspie yes I agree, very confused language here. However you could read it to mean that a GRC is a legal fiction and thus a man can be treated legally as a woman in some circumstances- BUT - with exemptions. Exemptions that are protecting females. Because you can’t change sex. It is the exemptions re sex that are key to the EA.

I think this is the most important bit

A man/transwoman with no GRC is a man.
A man/transwoman with a GRC should be treated as their preferred gender BUT exemptions apply so they can still be excluded.
Which we all knew anyway. BUT now the EHRC formally recognise this where before it was all a bit obscure.

I agree Aspie - we'd be better of without the GRC legislation. Then we could all simply use the EA protected characteristics to ensure the rights of vulnerable groups. No conflict. But meanwhile it's helpful that the EA provision is being clarified (step by baby step). So it cheered me a bit.
But if they do make the GRC easier to obtain we are still likely to end up with a fustercluck. And women losing out. Which has uncheered me. However, I do have wine and am about to open it.

Agree with Aspie. And, even if the GRC process was really psychologically supported and well regulated and even if it was reserved for those dysphoric enough to have genital surgery... How is this supposed to work practically in the current climate? Few women would feel safe enough to ask to see a GRC in a gym changing room and would they even be allowed to do so? I fear the damage has already been done to the relationship between women and transexuals.

is this definitely true?

Well, that image is not the wording the EHRC use. I think this is the really important change from the June 30th statement:

This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

There is certainly a strong argument to defend single sex provision that could be put forward by organisations like Girl Guides, but the problem is that it isn't clear cut.

This change from the EHRC is certainly very welcome, but I don't think the law itself has ever been what caused organisations like Topshop and GG to remove single sex provision. It's the threat of bad publicity, harassment and expensive legal action. These tactics are effective because the law is unclear.

I should add that IANAL, so this is just my musings on the subject.

The RHRC guidance is here:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf

Slightly more specific government guidance is here:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85052/vcs-gender-reassignment.pdf

Is there a link to the official EHRC document with the new advice? Another one who is somewhat in the dark about who’s behind this account.

we'd be better of without the GRC legislation. Then we could all simply use the EA protected characteristics to ensure the rights of vulnerable groups.

This is why suggestions that the proposed new GRA is merely a small administrative change, with no effects on women's rights, are so disingenuous.

Even though single sex provision is still theoretically perfectly legal, it's being hugely eroded in practice by the way the GRA interacts with the EA. The practical effects of self-ID would be huge.