Liz Truss shift

[quote PacificState]@JellySaurus 'But there is a difference between mandating single-sex spaces and mandating the right to single-sex spaces' - what is the difference, in practice? Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand it. Say I'm a rape survivor looking for group counselling in Brighton and no local provider offers single sex group counselling - how do I invoke my right to that service, other than by taking the council or local providers to court to force them to provide one? Or is that not what it means?[/quote]
The reason single-sex services for women exist is that (a) women saw the need for them and set them up, and (b) this need was recognised and Protected in the Equality Act.

The only reason your putative female rape survivor might not find a women-only counselling service in Brighton is that MRAs successfully gaslit and bullied such services into becoming mixed-sex. Partly by claiming that the Equality Act barred them.

The right to this single-sex service is already mandated in the Equality Act. This right needs to be strengthened and actively supported so that anybody claiming that males should be given access to women's services gets the response "Don't be daft", rather than "Oh dear, yes dear, whatever you say dear, don't hit me, please, dear".

However, if a service excludes people on the basis of not falling into their chosen category, it may in practice be impossible not to discriminate against people with a PC.

Take gender. It's not a PC. There is no protected group sharing this characteristic. But an organisation says uses it anyway as a category to offer its services only to people who are defined as having "woman gender" by the organisation.

They therefore allow access to female clients who don't identify as men and to male clients who don't identify as men.

They exclude female clients who don't identify as women and male clients who don't identify as women.

Along comes a man who wants to access this service. Say it's a fully funded training program in STEM aiming to increase the percentage of women working in STEM and he has had challenges in his own life that means he certainly would benefit and he couldn't afford the training by himself.

The organisation refuses him access saying their places are limited to women and he doesn't meet their criteria for inclusion. He sues for unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex because the organisation allows other males access who are legally and biologically male just like him and therefore not women according to the relevant laws.

(The organisation cannot justify his exclusion by saying it's on the basis of him not sharing the PC of gender reassignment, because they have other clients who also don't share that PC.)

Along comes a woman who does not identify as a woman, but who remains legally female (has no GRC) and asks for a place, because again, this is a much needed opportunity for this individual. The organisation refuses, saying their places are limited to women and she doesn't meet their criteria of sharing a "woman gender".

She sues for discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment because the organisation allows other female people access who don't share that PC and their declared aim is to improve things for women, for whom the legal definition under equalities legislation applied to this case is "a female of any age". Which she is.

In both cases the organisation would lose, because discrimination is always unlawful unless the organisation applies one of the exceptions allowed for under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. And those exceptions are strictly limited and there is no exception that allows an organisation to conflate two protected groups in the above manner.

(It is legal to combine two or more PC and offer a service only for disabled children or pregnant women or black men. But you cannot offer a service for disabled children for instance and then include some disabled adults or some children without disabilities and/or exclude other disabled children.)

Those saying most women don't mind sharing with trans women are wrong in my opinion. None of the women I know would like it but we haven't been asked.

It is going under the radar. If I wasn't on this forum I would have no idea what is going on with our safe spaces being given away.

There is a trans woman in one of my local shops, I have conversed briefly with that person without batting an eyelid which probably made that person think I hadn't noticed, but I am polite.

I would however not want that person in the ladies loos, changing rooms etc.

Ah I see thanks @OldCrone

[quote PacificState]@JellySaurus 'But there is a difference between mandating single-sex spaces and mandating the right to single-sex spaces' - what is the difference, in practice? Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand it. Say I'm a rape survivor looking for group counselling in Brighton and no local provider offers single sex group counselling - how do I invoke my right to that service, other than by taking the council or local providers to court to force them to provide one? Or is that not what it means?[/quote]
What the EA says is that it is legitimate to provide a single-sex space or service in some circumstances, but no service provider is required to provide a single-sex space or service.

So what this means is that service providers have the right to provide a single-sex service. There is nothing in the legislation which makes it illegal not to provide such a service.

The AEA case seemed to say that you could not make a distinction between GRC holders and non GRC holders in accessing a space which would make sense as no one carries a GRC around and it’s illegal to ask to see it anyway. Designating a service/space as single sex, when this means biological sex and so excludes ALL TW with a GRC or not would make sense.

Liz Truss does not give our safe spaces away. No.

Mandating single sex spaces would require new law. Liz Truss is presumably indicating there is no intention to change the law.

The current political action is presumably an attempt to reinstate EA2010 as it was intended to work as it is becoming increasingly obvious that it’s application is currently skewed, as we can see from court cases being brought, where women are being harmed because of the wholescale failure to apply the exception that allows for single sex spaces.

Presumably, if it’s prøven over time that EA2010 is unworkable given proper guidance (realistically it hasn’t been tried) THEN will be the time for consideration of new laws to protect women.

For me the most interesting snippet was near the end of the article, where it addresses the claim that a GRC would suddenly gain significance:

Only a very small percentage of transgender people currently have a GRC and LGBT+ campaign groups have said the change would exclude the vast majority of the trans community.

The suggestions were strenuously denied by EHRC, which said it was “completely false to claim that we are looking to bar trans people from accessing spaces without a GRC” and referred to the reports as “misinformation”.

So what this appears to be is yet another false allegation made by those who don’t want women to have their rights reinstated. Again, the argument is being skewed by those with an agenda making up lies that public bodies then have to waste their time refuting.

It’s not surprising Truss and the EHRC are already sick of engaging, however when it comes to persuasion, making up strawman lies about what those with power are intending is not necessarily a great long-term plan.

@JellySaurus 'But there is a difference between mandating single-sex spaces and mandating the right to single-sex spaces' - what is the difference, in practice? Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand it. Say I'm a rape survivor looking for group counselling in Brighton and no local provider offers single sex group counselling - how do I invoke my right to that service, other than by taking the council or local providers to court to force them to provide one? Or is that not what it means?

I can't see any uk political party drafting legislation mandating single sex services by right.

It would be a retrograde step equality between the sexes. But there is a difference between mandating single-sex spaces and mandating the right to single-sex spaces. This already exists in the Equality Act. But this right is being chipped away. It needs to be strengthened and supported. It is ridiculous to expect every organisation that provides single-sex services to have to defend themselves in law or be blackmailed into making them mixed-sex.

Truss was a committed advocate of Remain and is now an ardent advocate of Brexit.
Her beliefs evolve with her ambitions.

So far that has consisted of telling Lotto that they are backing the wrong horse and that their decisions are unlawful, that relying upon Stonewall has devalued them, worn away their veneer of unbiased funding and shown them to be complicit in harming women's services across the UK.

We have told an individual philanthropist the same. The LA that we come under, Charities Commission have been informed of our intention to remain a woman's service, single sex as per the EA2010 and a whole host of other letters to various supporters.

We have been using the law to make our point for a while now. Lotto have nort responded!

I think they want or believe that market forces will dictate what happens but this doesn't allow for the reality of women and girls always being shoved to the bottom of the pile.

In a similar way the EQA provides a framework for disability provision and for disabled people to have rights but in reality they usually have to fight tooth and nail to get it also.

Maybe even bring discrimination suits for places that do really daft things like provide male only toilets but no female toilets.

I do think the impact on women is significant and no impact on men, therefore indirect discrimination and I think it could be argued.

Of course the best thing is direct action and that means us all tramping off to the male facilities and see what they think. It would be good to leave some leaflets for them to read. If this is all that's left, then this is what I'll do. I'm going to wait for Baroness Falkner to do her best with E10, but after that.....

I think essentially the women who want those services will have to advocate for them, fund them and go to court if necessary to justify them. I can't see any uk political party drafting legislation mandating single sex services by right.

Wow.

The inclusiveness and kindness and equality is just mindblowing in its absence. What a really lousy agenda this is.

Why should you have to fight for it, Samphire, when it is protected by law? The law should be fighting for the protection of your single-sex service, not allowing it to be de-funded and abused.

Restricting by gender =/= lawful. It has no basis in law.

Is it actually unlawful though? Can providers who choose not to categorise by sex instead choose their own categories, as long as they are not discriminating against a PC?

where is the legislation that will make sure single-sex services are available for those who need them?

In reality? Invested in people like me who work for a service that provides single sex services and has no intention of changing. Even when they took our funding...

I think essentially the women who want those services will have to advocate for them, fund them and go to court if necessary to justify them. I can't see any uk political party drafting legislation mandating single sex services by right.

So teenage girls have to 'advocate for' and go to court to 'justify' having single-sex toilets and changing rooms in school.

Female prisoners have to 'advocate for' and go to court to 'justify' having a women-only prison where they are not at risk of rape by other inmates.

Elderly and disabled women have to 'advocate for' and go to court to 'justify' their need for a same-sex carer.

Single sex or mixed sex is the only factual reality of this.

This! No matter how it is dressed up THIS is the truth of it. And we should stop being so wishy washy about it.

@PacificState women who want those services will have to advocate for them, fund them and go to court if necessary to justify them.

Yes. We will have to re-do the work of the last hundred years or so.

Alternatively we women, women's servcies, could just say FUCK OFF. Arrange for your own services. Which is what I take the first part of LTs letter to mean, The EA2010 fully supports, in law, the right of any organisation to maintain single sex provision, as per the guidelines.

I for one will be using her letter to mean just that!

trans-inclusive services are not female-exclusive in the real world - because most women happily use them.

Most is not all.

Some females will be excluded. This merely makes it clear that good females will suck it up and silly females don't have a good reason not to, so it's ok they're left with no access so that males get to choose their favourite of all the options. There are MNetters without rape crisis services, without refuges, without access to Hampstead Ponds, yada yada yada. Yes trans inclusive actually in fact means female excluding.

The first job of a women's space or resource (and lets be honest, those women's spaces were created meaning female spaces) is to be 'inclusive' and accessible to all women. Not just the male ones and their allies who are privileged enough not to mind.

If you're ok with some people being excluded so long as it's just a few, then frankly the population of TW is much lower than the population of females who are impacted and excluded. If you believe that male people matter more than females do, then own it.

Restricting by biological sex = lawful
Restricting by legal sex = lawful

Both of these options involve lawfully discriminating against people of the excluded sex, whether legal or biological.

Restricting by gender =/= lawful. It has no basis in law. As the judgement in For Women Scotland vs the Scottish Government reminds us, sex and gender reassignment are two distinct protected characteristics which cannot be lawfully conflated.

Any organisation that allows males access to a female-only provision on the basis of self-identification of sex is no longer using a lawful single-sex exception. The organisation is not including these males on the basis of their biological sex in a female-only provision, because they are not female. And it isn't including these males on the basis of their legal sex, because that's the whole point of self-identificstion of sex right now - these males remain legally male.

So how does the organisation justify exuding all other males from its provisions in law? It cannot and is therefore unlawfully discriminating against males who don't self-identify as trans.

There is one caveat to this in that the EHRC advises that those who are virtually indistinguishable from members of the opposite sex must be considered for inclusion in an opposite-sex provision regardless of whether they have a GRC.

This is difficult to apply in practice and is strongly debated by both sides in the debate - the provision relies on perception and perception is entirely subjective. Which is not a good or fair measure to decide access. We know for instance that women in general are much better at recognising sex than men. And hypervigilant women who have survived male violence will recognise fully transitioned males as male even if they otherwise may pass for most people. So that leads to obvious problems from a women's rights perspective.

And the mantra acceptance without exception is clearly in direct conflict with any kind of gatekeeping on the basis of appearance.

But even if according to EHRC advice organisations can legally operate a policy based on legal sex combined with allowing access to those who have fully transitioned, I cannot see a way of operating an exclusion policy on the basis of self-identification, which is what access based on gender amounts to.

@OldCrone I think essentially the women who want those services will have to advocate for them, fund them and go to court if necessary to justify them. I can't see any uk political party drafting legislation mandating single sex services by right.

Prisons - feck knows. Most people don't give a shit about prisoners, that's the terrible truth. Karen White was a terrible, terrible story for TRAs and it will be in their interests to lobby for serious risk assessments to stop that happening again. But electorally it doesn't make any sense for any government to make a song and dance about improving conditions for any prisoners, for any reason. Rory Stewart was the only prisons minister in memory to take a serious interest in prisoners' well-being and he isn't even in politics any more.