Consultation of Equality Act enforcement open : Womens' and Equality Committee

And I don't see that Croft v Royal Mail has anything to add there.

So even if I accept the case by case basis for women's toilets, I don't accept it for women's refuges that are strictly female only, and I think the legislation suggests that it is proportionate to restrict a rape counselling service role to females only, and I see no need that that should be on a case by case basis at all.

Although Ms Croft lost her appeal, the Court of Appeal adopted a more realistic attitude than the EAT's blanket approach that all pre-operative male to female transsexuals, whatever their circumstances, must be treated as men. The Court of Appeal has left it open, in some circumstances, for pre-operative male to female transsexuals to use female facilities. It will require employers to consider all the circumstances, rather than use the crude distinction of pre- and post-operative.

www.thompsonstradeunion.law/news/lelr/weekly-issue-82-september-2003/pre-operative-protection

I'm guessing you think this is why. Note in some circumstances and the fact that it specifically refers to a known quality, being employed and being in the early stages of physical gender reassignment. Not some random bloke in the loo.

I consider women only spaces to be both proportionate and legitimate.

Me too. This should be the starting point of the discussion: why do we have single sex spaces? Who are which ones important to and why? How do we ensure they keep that choice while supporting the trans community?

Who are the different males without a gender dysphoria diagnosis who may wish to use female changing rooms, shelters, etc? What reasons would they have? What are the risks to women and girls?

2. Croft v Royal Mail

That case was 20 years ago, long before the introduction of the EA and before the GRA. I think this needs properly looking at.

Guidance changes. It isn't the primary legislation which only refers to " proportionate" and "legitimate". I consider women only spaces to be both proportionate and legitimate. It's a subjective test and it could change with public perception.

I can't see any reference to case by case in EHRC guidance, where is that?

What is the EHRC doing adding in additional hoops to the Equality Act then? Who wrote or informed that guidance? Who is representing my interests as a female at the EHRC and who do they get legal advice from on this?

I currently have no confidence that the EHRC represents - or has been representing - my interests in the increasingly obvious clash of rights between some trans lobby org demands and female rights.

Pencils, where does the 'case by case' basis come from if it is not in the EA?

1. EHRC statutory guidance
2. Croft v Royal Mail

Wasn’t it a month ago or so there was a public discussion held regarding changes to the EA along the lines of including the impoverished and homeless?

YY. The one lots of MNers went to and asked questions about trans issues.

Pencils, where does the 'case by case' basis come from if it is not in the EA?

Surely this isite directly connected to the jess freeman thing? They are trying to backtrack without looking like they are to blame. They are panicking big time no?

The change will have happened because of the private 'meetings in back rooms' that TRAs boast about. None of this happens in the public view - and when they decide to do something in the public gaze we end up the much ridiculed "consultations" that Penny Mordaunt heads with such 'neutrality' or the deluded version from the City of London.

The case by case basis is perhaps something we can raise in this consultation. It seems unnecessary. Some services should be able to keep out males even with GRC. I don't see in that case why a case by case basis would be needed and indeed the idea of making a rape counselling service post eligible for females only, suggests that it would not be on a case by case basis.

Nor that 'the bar must be set high' for refusal of access to opposite sex spaces, as the government's Head of LGBT Equalities has promised transpeople.

I don't see why. If women's feelings and rights were properly respected, third spaces would be the norm and an expectation that males would not access female spaces. Public perception could change this.

No and I have just watched some of the oral evidence given to the select committee for the MM Trans Inquiry. It seems there was much more of s tentative approach about trans access to women's spaces then. None of this "we've been accessing them since 2010 so you can't stop us so fuck you" rhetoric even from Miller and Helen Belcher.

The change seems to happen by the time of the report and the subsequent government response. The report called for the exemptions in the case of GRC to be got rid of and changes to the EA to change gender reassignment to gender identity and include non binary (which Miller seems bizarrely fixated on). The government response says "no, we are not persuaded that we need to change the EA at this time, as it is already sufficient because basically they felt it was almost impossible to use the exemptions for a "high street" service. They said that non binary, genderfluid etc were protected under discrimination by perception, either that they were perceived as undergoing gender reassignment or they were perceived as a man or woman.

In addition they felt their new guidance to both employers and service providers written by Gendered Intelligence would help with informing them of their responsibilities to trans people frightening them into putting trans needs before women's

For example there's nothing in the Act itself that says the exceptions must be used on a case by case basis

Nor that 'the bar must be set high' for refusal of access to opposite sex spaces, as the government's Head of LGBT Equalities has promised transpeople.

For example there's nothing in the Act itself that says the exceptions must be used on a case by case basis.

Another good example would be the AWS. Having to crowdfund a legal challenge is clear evidence of the difficulties with enforcement and the lack of accessibility.

However, the guidance says - You should be careful not to comment on matters currently before a court of law, or matters in respect of which court proceedings are imminent. If you anticipate such issues arising, you should discuss with the clerk of the committee how this might affect your submission.

So I don't know whether we can talk about this. It would be daft if we couldn't at least point to the public crowdfunder. I don't even know if court action is imminent any more, has anybody heard anything?

In terms of whether the commission is using its powers well, it might be worth exploring how far their statutory codes and technical guidance have moved from the EA itself and what exactly that is based on (case law? 'guidance' from lobby groups?)

Will you write, Pam?

If you are genuinely concerned SarahAr get in touch with some of the organisations like WPUK or FPFW who are looking at these with currently no support or funding from govt or public bodies.

I don't believe from your posts you are concerned though, any more than trans lobby orgs like Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence etc who have actively been campaigning to remove and weaken women and girls legal rights for some time now. These lobby orgs have been trying and in many ways succeeding in changing the law to discriminate against women. We noticed, it's not going to work anymore. We are defending them and reasserting them, whatever names you want to call us for it.

Sad this thread has already become about trans people. And it is not about supporting trans women but changing the law to discriminate against them.

All women suffer from sex discrimination. If the government make the EA easier to enforce and increase the fines, this will help women bringing claims for sex discrimination. This should be applauded.

Gobsmacked this doesn't mention the myriad of problems that are starting to really show with implementing the sex exemptions

What problems? Do you have any court cases or any documented examples that you could link to?

It's another opportunity to explain the myriad problems. It will NOT protect us. It doesn't protect us now.