Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

It was Laura Pidcock ApplePen, such a load of pointless waffle.

You can't have single sex spaces with self-i'd. Labour's policy is either stupid or deceptive.

But hey it's in the news!!

Enforcement of single sex exemptions, not sure who from Labour wss talking.

On R4 now

I have pondered over this for a couple of days now, and have come to the conclusion that I feel even more insulted by the Labour Party thinking that women would fall for this.

Clearly, if anyone can get a GRC, then single sex exemptions mean nothing. You would have a birth certificate that says you are the sex you choose and there would be no way for anyone to prove you are actually the opposite sex.

I can now only vote for a party that commits to repeal of the GRA, anything else is not worth the paper it is written on.

Looking at the quote mentioned earlier

"A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress."

It's clear that the legislators drafted this to mean there was still a clear distinction in the legal meaning between a 'woman' and a transexual male with a GRC.

That's what's changed, and perhaps explains the reasoning behind the persistent mantra: Transwomen are women.

There needs to be urgent legal clarification and definition of the words used in the relevant legislation.

I’m sick of LGBT being the buzz word/phrase that politicians keep trotting out. It’s like politicians are terrified of upsetting them but when I went to Pride (heterosexual here btw) everyone there was so welcoming. I think that he minority are militant and spoil it for everyone else by making it seem that everyone else is like that.

It’s on R4 now with Ruth from Woman’s Place UK

The employer can only say 'oh you look trans so you can't have the job' which is a bit awkward if they are not. So they are going to go with the easiest, least embarrassing, least likely to be sued over option

If they want to avoid being sued by someone then their best bet would be to try and find a legitimate reason not to employ anyone who looks trans. Far safer not to take them on if they have other candidates that are at least nearly as good.

As I've reading and rereading these posts about the law, exemptions, definitions, privacy et al, it occurs to me that the most glaring issue is this.

As it stands, via the grounding in the law, and by extension any guidance around it, manifesto promises etc, our sex based rights are still essentially hanging on whoever decides to grant them. The GRA and any of the proposed reforms thereof, undercut absolutely any reading of the EA2010 depending on whoever is in power deciding what sex means.

On that basis, having ruled out the Greens and LibDems for being quite explicitly Anti-Woman, I've also sadly come to the conclusion that I cannot vote Labour right now because it's clear that they still view women's rights as something they bestow if they feel like it, and withdraw for the same reason.

It's late and I'm stressed, but it's the most awful sinking feeling that actually, sex based rights in law seem to be a bit of a mirage.

When Labour stop wasting our money forcing us to challenge them in court over their actions on All Women Shortlists, I'll believe they understand and support The Equality Act

Exactly, if they genuinely wanted to strengthen women's sex based rights this is something they could do now, no need to wait until they win an election. Actions speak louder than words.

The employer can only say 'oh you look trans so you can't have the job' which is a bit awkward if they are not. So they are going to go with the easiest, least embarrassing, least likely to be sued over option. Path of least resistance

Yes It boggles my mind. If an organisation wanted to enforce the sex-based exemptions and a woman was denied a service because she was perceived to be a trans woman I wonder on what basis she could sue? Discrimination on the basis that she was perceived to have undergone gender reassignment?

When Labour stop wasting our money forcing us to challenge them in court over their actions on All Women Shortlists, I'll believe they understand and support The Equality Act, if not women's rights.

The thing is, a person with a GRC will have female on all their ID documents including their birth certificate, so when applying for work or accessing services there is no way that providers/employers could challenge this.

I agree. Was just clarifying the wording of the EA.

It is a variation on the Monty Python meme that does the rounds "I want the right to have babies" "Where are you going to gestate it - in a box?"

Women have the right to single sex spaces, but no practical means of achieving it.

The thing is, a person with a GRC will have female on all their ID documents including their birth certificate, so when applying for work or accessing services there is no way that providers/employers could challenge this.

The employer can only say 'oh you look trans so you can't have the job' which is a bit awkward if they are not. So they are going to go with the easiest, least embarrassing, least likely to be sued over option. Path of least resistance.

If a person says they are female and all their documents state they are female how does this work in the real world? It would basically be a law that it is impossible to enforce and that is arguably bad law.

This is why I've been saying that single-sex provision is incompatible with a law which allows people to change sex.

In theory you might be able to make a distinction between women and transwomen with GRCs, but in practice it might be impossible, because in terms of their legal documentation, they are indistinguishable from each other.

Thanks for that link Lang.

I think there's still a problem with that phrase 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' which means that whether or not transwomen with GRCs should be treated as women is down to someone's judgement about what is proportionate and legitimate, leaving their judgement open to legal challenge.

The prison service could have used the exemption to keep TW with GRCs out of women's prisons, but they chose not to.

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress

The thing is, a person with a GRC will have female on all their ID documents including their birth certificate, so when applying for work or accessing services there is no way that providers/employers could challenge this. So in practice the sex-based exemptions do not work. If a person says they are female and all their documents state they are female how does this work in the real world? It would basically be a law that it is impossible to enforce and that is arguably bad law.

Julian Norman wrote a great blog about the interactions between the EA and the GRA a while back and it's worth another read in relation to all of this. It really highlights how self ID would impact on the single sex exemptions in the EA.

"It is legal for an organisation to exclude a trans person even with a GRC. Whether this is possible in practice is a moot point"

filia.org.uk/news/2018/8/23/has-everyone-really-got-it-wrong#

It's changing the marker on the birth certificate that is the problem.

Yes. Because of the privacy aspect. Privacy is what means the circle cannot be squared.

OldCrone - what you're missing is that EqA says that it's okay to discriminate against the protected category of gender reassignment (with or without a GRC) in providing single sex spaces under the exemptions. EHRC - thoroughly captured as we know - put out guidance with the interpretation that it was discriminating against the protected category of sex to exclude GRC holders. Stonewall ran with it (as you'd expect with its connection to David Isaac). But they have had to row back at least partially on that and change their guidance as per image.

Maya F wrote a good briefing for FPFW on this (the image is there too):

fairplayforwomen.com/single-sex/

It's changing the marker on the birth certificate that is the problem.

That should never have happened. And it should never happen.

I agree. The GRA should be repealed.

"A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress."*

So can Dawn Butler not read then?

Agree Datun.

x post