Ann Sinnot correctly points out that both the GEO and EHRC guidance have deviated from the original intent of the EA with respect to single sex spaces. The Act states that the exceptions can be applied if they are a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. There is nothing in the Act itself about “exceptional circumstances” or “case by case.” These requirements were introduced into the statutory code (and underlying EHRC guidance) apparently as a result of pressure from the trans lobby. There isn’t a single example of the appropriate use of the exceptions in the statutory code (but there is an example of inappropriate use).
A regulator placing more onerous requirements in regulatory codes and guidance, over and above the requirements of the law, is known as “gold-plating” the law. The government usually strongly disapproves of gold-plating, but it’s clear that EHRC is allowed to get away with it when it undermines the rights of women and girls to safety, dignity and privacy.
The most egregious example of this to date is the draft EHRC guidance on transgender inclusion in schools. At the time that this was leaked, EHRC had been working on this document for about two years and considered it to be close to the final version. There wasn’t a single example in the guidance on the proportionate use of the exceptions; in fact the guidance gives the onerous impression that the exceptions can never be used. The guidance gives scant regard to safeguarding principles, and the safety, dignity and privacy of girls. It even encourages schools to break the law and introduce mixed sex toilets, in contravention of the regulations which require single sex toilets. In addition, EHRC have used their incompetent record keeping as a pretext for refusing a perfectly reasonable FOI request about the organisations they involved during the production of this guidance. EHRC’s excuse was that it would take too long to find information that any competent regulator would have at their finger tips. This is just another example of EHRC’s lack of transparency and accountability, and it is hard to see how this is consistent with the Nolan Principles.
We also know that EHRC have approved the policies of Girl Guiding and the Youth Hostel Association which allow women and girls to share toilets, washing facilities, dormitories and tents with transwomen (and transgirls). In the case of Girlguiding, this is without the consent of the parents.
To all intents and purposes EHRC is pursuing a strategy to implement Stonewall Law by ignoring the exceptions, attempting to write them out of regulatory guidance, or make the requirements so onerous that the exceptions are impossible to implement. The government needs to wake up to the fact that EHRC has been totally captured by the trans lobby, that EHRC’s behaviour is serious dereliction of its statutory duty to women and girls, and it amounts to gross regulatory malpractice. The public reaction to the Labour Party’s atrocious trans pledge should also give a clear signal to the government that the public is not prepared to be gaslighted by GEO, EHRC or anyone else.
Sanddancer.