EHRC single sex guidance out

‘ Because some people have a medical condition which means they need to change aspects of their physical sex and live and be accepted within the socially organised aspects of that sex to be able to function and be well.’

People have rights to appropriate MEDICAL treatment when they are ill. They don’t have rights to social acceptance by a group of people. That isn’t something the law can mandate, unfortunately.

What do TRAs imagine an individual by individual ban would entail?

Three transwomen wanting to join a female only swim say. Standing at reception. How does the receptionist decide?

Is it looks? Surgery? Tone of voice?

What do they want the criteria to be.

@CatherinaJTV any ideas? Even one?

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

It keeps on coming back to "case by case" doesn't it?

TRAs use it to suggest women want to be Genital Police. To say that ia blanket ban is unfair.

Actually @CatherinaJTV and others, a blanket ban by an individual organisation, that has defined its reasoning, is entirely legal, proportionate and fair to its user base.

The case is the individual organisation and its specific situation. NOT an individual person. So, as I explained to RMW (not they they replied) the charity I work for decided no men, including transwomen, ever. We are a DV refuge, a crisis centre. The convoluted thinking, persistent lies by TRAs has lost us a lot of funding, reduced our services - and that includes associated services that support men, transwomen included. THAT @CatherinaJTV is what thinking and proselytising like yours does to women. It benefits no trans person and does harm to vulnerable women, men, trans people alike.

I hope the thought of that gives you pause... though I doubt it will!

Because some people have a medical condition which means they need to change aspects of their physical sex and live and be accepted within the socially organised aspects of that sex to be able to function and be well. (With some limits).

I thought the push in the last few years was that trans was NOT a medical condition. It’s a state of being, sometimes shifting like the sands, sometime immutable.

That’s why we’ve been told it doesn’t matter if a man only identified as woman for a few days, for those days he IS a literal woman. It also apparently does not matter if a person has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria anymore.

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

Yes. That’s what “case-by-case” means. It doesn’t mean on an individual-by-individual basis.

It's so clear.

This has been very illuminating.

As a PP said, they're not seeking equality they're wanting male privilege over women, and women shouldn't be allowed to say no what men want.

They can call it a medical condition that means they need to be "accepted within the socially organised aspects of that sex'. It's not what I call it.

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

What a crazy mis-reading of the Act! Transwomen are men - that's what the trans bit means. There is no justification in the act for excluding a man from men's provisions and neither should there be. If this is the nonsense that is being peddled and no-one in the TRA movement can see that this is nonsense, it does not speak well to their powers of thinking.

Thanks for replying Catherina. None of the articles you posted mentioned s.7 of the equality act, so I’m still none the wiser why you think the guidance is clearly illegal as it clashes with s.7. I really can’t see how it conflicts at all. I was just curious why you thought that, because so far I’ve seen a lot of upset about this advice but very little discussion about why it’s so horribly wrong.

Also the complaint that “the act doesn’t mention biological sex” is not a very strong one. The act defines woman as a “female”. Case law has established that “female” is a concept which refers to biological sex. So… it appears the guidance is perfectly correct. What else would “female” refer to if not the concept of biological sex? And what on earth is the purpose of “single sex exemptions” if the act is not discussing biological sex?

Thought this was relevant

The guidance makes multiple references to biological sex, “because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate”. The phrase biological sex does not appear in the Equality Act.

Once again, the judgement in FWS v Lord Advocate of Scotland is the current authority on this question. It states unequivocally that sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The judges arrived at this ruling by carefully considering the definition of sex in the Equality Act itself (which was after all one of the main issues in this case.)

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

1. Males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are not banned from toilets provided for males and females with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are not banned from toilets provided for females in this example. This claim is false.

1. The statutory code refers to case-by-case but the interpretation that this means user-by-user rather than use case-by-use case does not stem from the statutory code but from trans rights campaigners.

Both the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC have clarified that the correct interpretation is use case-by-use case. User-by-user would not, after all, be workable.

Excluding females to include males is obviously unacceptable to a rational person.

The obvious answer is mixed sex options for those who would like to use them, plus single sex provision.

The rage about inclusion meaning everyone, and females being treated with equal consideration, tells you everything you need to know.

But what about workplaces where people can't just vote with their feet if single sex facilities are not provides?

There is a strong need for their Patient and Public Advisory Groups (or whatever they're called) to mandate a heterodox member or somebody charged with that responsibility so that it's not viable to mandate shibboleth for recruitment criteria.

So the two links above. One written by a TW with a vested interest and the other from pink news. I see. So no credible sources then.

The problem seems to be that women can't be forced to share single sex spaces when they are undressed and vulnerable and MRA's seem to think we should be forced to and are encouraging each other to ignore both the EQA2010 and the supporting guidance from EHRC.

It's incredibly creepy.

Actually I doubt it ever would be a blanket ban on trans people - a blanket ban on male people, yes.

WHEN their inclusion negatively impacts on the female people that service is for.

A blanket ban on trans people when it is proportionate and in the interests of the female people the service was set up for to do so. And when it would exclude or affect access for those female people to make it a mixed sex service.

Providing additional options for those trans people.

Fgs what's the prob?

The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis

In reality companies will adapt with single sex spaces and a unisex option for trans. It is most likely to become very wide spread, and it gives women the right to challenge a man in the ladies and ask for him to be removed. It is well overdue.

Those companies that do not offer space spaces to women can see their profits plunge as we vote with our feet and choose retailers, restaurants etc that take our safety and dignity seriously. Market forces will be the strongest motivator.

www.personneltoday.com/hr/ehrc-single-sex-spaces-guidance-could-lead-employers-into-unlawfulness/

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/04/04/ehrc-guidance-single-sex-trans/

The guidance makes multiple references to biological sex, “because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate”. The phrase biological sex does not appear in the Equality Act.

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

@Datun and @TheAbbotOfUnreason
Thank you

Catherina, could you explain why you think it violates S.7 of the equality act ? S.7 pertains to the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people with and without GRCs have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Sex is a separate characteristic from gender reassignment and the two can come apart.

This isn’t a specific criticism of you , by the way, but I’ve noticed a lot of people say this guidance is illegal or faulty without actually explaining why that is.

Which actually, they already have done.

Either that, or make it crystal clear that changing your legal sex has no bearing on anything whatsoever.