Enforcing the Equality Act

Red thank you for taking the time to post this.

Hmm, Pencils, they really aren't very impressive, are they.

Watching that left me feeling completely underwhelmed.

If that's the body with statutory powers, who are experts, then no wonder it's so difficult for people to be treated fairly and in accordance with the EA.

I can't stand Maria Miller but this clip is one of the highlights of the inquiry for me. She gives them a Proper Telling Off -

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/0e490cbe-e2fa-4735-a281-9e94c2d9307a?in=11:30:00&out=11:32:58

I do agree with Sue that EHRC needs new leadership. I was deeply unimpressed when I watched this evidence session -

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0e490cbe-e2fa-4735-a281-9e94c2d9307a

• and the overall impression I got from the report is that they're just not doing very much of anything.

When did the EHRC take the position of taking away rights from trans people?

Sue Pascoe seems unhappy with the EHRC

158. Others were equally clear in their view that the inclusion of trans women had no effect on the single-sex status of an organisation.176

In this instance Stonewall and James are just straight up lying to the committee. Nobody can change sex and there are plenty of examples of the effect on W&G.

Thanks Red really appreciate your time on this thread. Placemarking for later.

Case-by-case doesn't take into account the women. Never takes into account the women for whom the service is set up.

Excellent points Pencils.

What does "case by case" look like in practice? Who decides, and how - can women have a say anonymously without giving any reasons if they object? And what about future service users - are you going to put each new user on the spot and ask her to agree to mixed sex?

A new Code that only afforded protection to women accessing services for victims of male violence would be the services equivalent of the benefits rape clause.
Exactly.

DoctorW - It is also crucial that the scope of the new guidance moves beyond just women's refuges. Women and girls their sex based rights to privacy, safety and fairness in all areas of life. Sports, changing rooms, prisons, overnight accommodation, intimate care etc.

This is really important. We cannot have a system where the only single sex services allowed are those provided specifically for women who have been abused and/or raped (and who are prepared to disclose it).

1. we are all entitled to pivacy, dignity and safety, as well as fairness in sport

2. the women who need refuges and rape crisis services also need to use mainstream services. Are they suddenly less vulnerable because they have dared to go out and use a women's gym or changing room?

A new Code that only afforded protection to women accessing services for victims of male violence would be the services equivalent of the benefits rape clause.

What is a single-sex service?

157. When reading through the evidence on this issue, it struck us that different people were using the term ‘single-sex’ in different ways. For some, references to single-sex or women-only services meant services that did or would apply the exceptions to exclude trans women. One submission from a member of the public who described herself as “a woman who is increasingly concerned about the erosion of my rights” stated that “[a]s soon as you say that transwomen are women, single sex spaces become mixed sex.”174 Another individual, who described themselves as a “PTSD sufferer whose symptoms are triggered by males” felt that:

When a previously single sex provision becomes single gender it then it also becomes mixed sex, and unsafe for me and the multitudes of other women like me.175

158. Others were equally clear in their view that the inclusion of trans women had no effect on the single-sex status of an organisation.176

If you go to the footnote 176 you discover that these 'others' are -

1. Stonewall - nuff said.

2. Diana James - the TW from the Cornwall refuge who is quite heavily quoted in this report.

Diana James seems to have a problem with boundaries generally.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3593346-DV-Select-Committee-contributor-wants-to-browse-adult-sites-on-train-wifi

Just catching up with this. Thank you Red!

190.We do not believe that non-statutory guidance will be sufficient to bring the clarity needed in what is clearly a contentious area. We recommend that, in the absence of case law the EHRC develop, and the Secretary of State lay before Parliament, a dedicated Code of Practice, with case studies drawn from organisations providing services to survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. This Code must set out clearly, with worked examples and guidance, (a) how the Act allows separate services for men and women, or provision of services to only men or only women in certain circumstances, and (b) how and under what circumstances it allows those providing such services to choose how and if to provide them to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So pleased to see this.

The current 2011 code (for services, public functions and associations) can be found here:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

• and includes the following:

13.60 - As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances.

Karen Ingala Smith picks up on the difficulties of 'case by case' at 185.

'Case by case' means that no-one has the right to run women only services any more. You can have it as a policy but 'case by case' overrules your policy so you can never guarantee female only space to your service users.

There was a consultation on the codes when they were brought in in 2011, the report is here:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

There is evidence in this report that the additional requirements in the EHRC Statutory Code - over and above those required by the Equality Act itself - were added under pressure from tra organisations:

vii. Various transsexual stakeholder groups responded to the formal consultation and also participated in the parallel consultation events taking place on the non-statutory guidance.

Feedback from the consultation events was incorporated into the employment and services codes where appropriate, particularly on issues of confidentiality, use of single sex services and the legal definition of transgender.

and …

e. Services, public functions and associations
• A number of concerns were raised about the exceptions, in particular the exceptions for charities, single sex services and separate services.
These sections have been revised as a result.

In the back of the report, the list of respondents includes the usual suspects - a:gender (civil service TRA org), Gires and Press for Change. Also Stonewall but they were still a LGB organisation back then.

I am assuming that new statutory code will involve a new consultation. We need to be ready to participate and to insist that the groups which actually represent women are fully involved.

Sorry! Was on my phone.

Hah! My mother calls me "that" and lets just say I don't like her very much!

You raised very good points in your reply to my post, I really like your angles. Meh, that sounds like some weird chat up line! 🤣

RadFemLawyer's take

Just to say that @LadyJustice (iirc for the MN handle) should take a bow for encouraging us to respond to this call for evidence at the time when a number of us were heavily engaged in responding to the main WEC/GRA call and the Sports call for evidence.

Steven, I think there is a problem with the Equality Act itself here though.

Yes, you're right, and the vagaries of "reasonable adjustments". Just please never add an "n" to my name.

Red, thank you so much for doing this.

I have mixed feelings. It's clear that some of the problems have been recognised, but like a pp said, the GEO's proposed role (which is unavoidable, obv) is concerning because they routinely include TWs in their definition of woman. For example, it recently published a research report on "healthcare amongst lesbian and bisexual women". Don't be fooled by the title. Apparently lesbian women can be lumped in with this one group of het males.

This is a bit trivial, but I'm gobsmacked that they've quoted James claim that women in refuges argue about who has had the worst abuse!

So pleased to see this really important thread back near the top of the board.
The implications of this are massive - as are the Welsh government lack of impact assessments and lying about it, the Michael Biggs research into theTavistock, the Scottish analysis (to name a few). They're evidencing the growing impact of all the work that's been done to call out all the abuse that's happening and the regulatory capture of so many institutions.
These threads won't be targeted by any of the word salad posters as they're not the type of thread they want to boost - too much concrete evidence. But it's well worth keeping them bumped.

Thanks for your research and posting @RedToothBrush , I'm still reading but noticed something I wanted to comment on. I'm male, disabled with wheelchair, DP is blind, arthritic, seizure-prone and DD is pansexual, genetic issues rendering her disabled but able to work.

Remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics.

Isn't enforced. Restaurants with same-sex toilets; restaurants with only upstairs toilets (really fun, and has been an occasion where we recently "rolled out", three mains untouched on the table. Pay? Fuck that). Shops with numerous steps and no provision for wheelchair access/help for those unable to use steps - ramp/even double close handrails in some situations.

Lack of adequate disabled parking/distance of parking at medical centres.

Everyone (as in major supermarkets) offer mobility scooters for people like me, yet where are the reductions or minimised disadvantages for a blind person. DP might get to customer services alone but beyond that, how is she expected to shop? Nowhere we've investigated/found offer any provision. Nobody,

Take steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people.

As above.

Encourage people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

They must be sniffing something very expensive and very good to believe this ever has a chance in working.

I realise this is posted in feminism, and I haven't posted anything directly apportioned to it, but seeing DP, and DD abused and restricted on a regular basis purely due to their sex, comparing my disabilities to DP/DD, they are prejudiced far more.

The work situation of DD asking to leave work early whilst being racked with severe bone pain being denied as "you're a girl, it's only pain and unimportant" while approving a male colleague to leave early to go to the theatre, is appalling.

I often/always call out discriminators but will admit I'm extremely scared to do so in a street, especially with a male perpetrator, due to fears of physical abuse and concern for DP (who is always with me).

RadFemLawyer's take on Twitter:

twitter.com/radfemlawyer/status/1156146211835060224?s=21

There's a thread in legal today about a pretty clear cut case of pregnancy discrimination where the OP is being discouraged by many from pursuing the matter because of the perceived costs risk.

I absolutely agree with the view of the report that individual litigation isn't fit for purpose and I'm very glad more attention is finally being given to the issue.

IIRC correctly (maybe DoctorW can confirm) when Fair Play For Women did a FOI to the EHRC some of the internal emails showed that there was some discord amongst the lawyers (or are they policy folk?) at the EHRC, I think I remember reference to "I know we don't all agree" and a lot of putting off making the decision to respond one way or the other because they couldn't get consensus. I wonder how those who were obviously going against the TWAW grain are feeling today.