Last week the Women and Equalities Select Committee recommended EHRC write a new Code of Practice covering single sex exemptions. This article sets out exactly what needs to be considered.

The granting of a GRC should give people the Protected Category of Gender Reassignment under the EA, that even if a GRC were now given on a self-ID basis, that would be fine. Then they will be protected from discrimination due to their gender reassignment.

What needs to be urgently changed is the amending of the sex marker on a birth certificate. There is no jusification for that.

Allowing a change of a sex marker conflates two separate categories, and has now left us in a position where there is no longer a single record anywhere of a person's actual SEX. Therefore, no way of ever "proving" legally who is a transwoman and who is a woman.

An organisation that provides a service just for women has no obligation to provide a service for men

This is a really important point. Why are people trying to convince us that Women’s Aid should be diverting funds and resources to support vulnerable males? And why are Women’s Aid buying it for fucks sake?

No separate case is needed for excluding disabled males, older males, gay males, Catholic males, Jewish males, atheist males, or any other males from a women’s single sex service. It makes sense therefore that males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are also excluded in the same way as all other males. People who have legally changed sex can also be excluded, since it is not someone’s legal sex, but their actual physical sex which has the potential to make others uncomfortable.

This bit is FAB!

I think there is a lot to play for in just getting the guidance clear, and making sure that organisations and service users understand that a sign or policy that says "women only" means just that.

An organisation that provides a service just for women has no obligation to provide a service for men. And an organisation that provides seperate services for both sexes only needs to make reasonable provision for those who dont want to share with their own sex (like having a unisex/single occupancy option ).

There will always be people who try to get away with breaking the rules, but it's important to be clear what the entitlements are.

Thank you Maya for an excellent analysis and Jacky for answering my question.

Agreed Pencils, this secrecy does no-one any favours.

Also need to push for a strengthening of the right to exclude even holders of a GRC where necessary.

It sounds fantastic but how will they be excluded if they have a birth certificate a la Aimee saying they were born female?

If we can't get rid of the GRA just yet then we need an urgent amendment. At the moment it's all rights and no responsibility. There's a massive confidentiality clause in there which makes it unlawful for anyone to disclose a trans person's status if they have a GRC or are applying for one, if that knowledge has been gained in a professional capacity.

This is completely arse about face. It needs to be made explicitly legally OK to disclose someone's trans status for the purpose of upholding a single sex exception. It also needs to be made a criminal offence for someone to withhold their trans status for the purpose of deceptively breaching a single sex exception.

There are no good reasons for pulling that shit.

Hi all. Thanks for the

We must campaign for all the relevant Exceptions in the UK Equality Act 2010 be made mandatory

I don't think it can exactly work like this. The EqA is really broad - it applies to private companies, public sector, charities, associations etc... and all kinds of situations. It can't specify when things can be mixed sex (most of the time) and when they should be single / separate sex (i.e. the exemptions). It is principle based.

But I think where better guidance can help is in making clear that:

• for public sector orgs changing policy (e.g. going from single sex changing to unisex changing village) requires an Equality Impact Assessment

• single sex means single sex - if you are excluding men from an all women facility then you are using the exemption. You shouldn't apply it ambiguously way

• if you are applying the single sex exemption it means that providing a single sex service has been deemed a legitimate aim. This means it must be proportionate means to exclude people of the opposite sex, as this is the only way to provide a single sex service.

-- organisations/services should be inclusive of transgender people (people with the protected characteristic "gender reassignment"), but this does not require or imply access to that single/separate sex services of the opposite sex. In most cases providing a unisex/single user/'gender neutral' option in addition to separate sex means everyone has 'somewhere to pee'.

how will they be excluded if they have a birth certificate a la Aimee saying they were born female?

You are right GRC and the legal fiction of people changing their birth certificates makes this harder to implement, but....

-- there are many more more self identified TW than those with a GRC, so its worth getting the principle right with the majority
-- I think if this is clear you can then argue that having a GRC also does not give someone the right to access single sex spaces where others are naked /vulnerable etc... (because why should it?)

I think next thing we need to do is push the govt (via Victoria Atkins? ) in its response to the WESC report , to give the EHRC as strong push to develop the new Code of Practice (with a broad scope, not just refuges, aligned to the Equality Act and the protected characteristic of sex etc...)

The Scottish Parliament is asking for input on “Delivery of national equalities and human rights priorities in partnership with the third sector.” by 23rd August...

www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/112216.aspx

Brilliant, thank you Maya!

This is brilliant!

On a jovial note, I appreciate this small excerpt particularly but can't quite put my finger on why :

but also more lightly supervised situations where the person on the front desk has little to go on but superficial appearance, as well as completely unsupervised situations such as public toilets, or a woman working from home providing Brazilian waxing

It sounds fantastic but how will they be excluded if they have a birth certificate a la Aimee saying they were born female?

Ha! Was just coming down here to post this

We'll always beat you to it!

It's an excellent piece of work. Truly.

Fantastic Maya - thank you.

There are so many insightful and clear pieces being written at the moment by many inspirational women. And they are having an impact.

Oh, I see Maya is on the thread!

Brava!

Maya’s a bloody smart woman. What a great piece of work

I want to quote the whole thing, but these bits caught my eye

they need a clear standard for what ‘single sex’ facilities means in practice, so that front-line staff, women, and transwomen understand what is appropriate and what their rights and responsibilities are, and no one is put in a position of uncertainty, humiliation or conflict

No separate case is needed for excluding disabled males, older males, gay males, Catholic males, Jewish males, atheist males, or any other males from a women’s single sex service. It makes sense therefore that males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are also excluded in the same way as all other males. People who have legally changed sex can also be excluded, since it is not someone’s legal sex, but their actual physical sex which has the potential to make others uncomfortable.

Seconded

Sorely needed. BUT - if a GRC enables the holder to get a new birth certificate giving their ‘new’ sex then the single sex exemptions don’t apply to them? And if more or less anyone can get a GRC with self id then the sex based exemptions don’t give much protection?

Ha! Was just coming down here to post this :)

Written by Maya Forstater, how powerfully and expertly she nails everything, forensic analysis, detailed and objective, no wonder certain people want to silence her and how important it is that her case succeeds.

Thank you for posting. It is a really good paper.

What a wonderful piece of work! Fair, balanced, reasonable.