Keep Prison Single Sex closing

I'm not convinced fully by any one of the legal opinions I've heard, tbh. Not to say they aren't what the court will decide, and I'm not a lawyer. Just can see issues with all of them. It really is a fucking mess.

What we say and think unfortunately counts for nothing in terms of legal reality.

I think we can probably all agree on this at least.

What we say and think unfortunately counts for nothing in terms of legal reality.

Yes, so if people want to discuss the various legal opinions and unpack them, I see that as a good thing. It's good to be aware of the flaws in your (general you) own arguments.

At this point as this is just a never ending circle of "opinions" as to how the law is written and how it is implemented (ie what is happening in real life) lets wait and see if the FSW JR shifts that.

Which is the purpose of the case.

What we say and think unfortunately counts for nothing in terms of legal reality.

He's not actually a lawyer either, he's a lecturer in law. And not for particularly long either.

But in the instance when the law recognises that sex is real, same sex (ie biological reality) is desirable (but must be proportionate!). So a biological male with a GRC can be excluded from a same sex service for biological females. (which more people could use but dont) ...

I know this perfectly well. But in reality it's not actually that simple, is it? There are no hard lines written into the law. The GRA does create some form of legal "woman" status for men. We know this. It needs to be thrashed out in court whether and how it affects the sex based exceptions.

I would be interested to know too given the NHS, police force, sports, schools, rape crisis centres, universities who are all ignoring it.

This is the KPSS analysis from last summer

kpssinfo.org/uk-legislation-sex-gender-pdf/

99.9% of providers of women only services know and implement how the SSE work.

Where are you getting that figure from?

Seriously? I think it is plain that I am talking about how the SSE work.

Lady Haldane explained it.

The Labour Party has explained it though tried to tone down the implication by saying "safe spaces".

99.9% of providers of women only services know and implement how the SSE work.

His mental indulgence in something totally other is irrelevant.

So to ave having to type it out again I am quoting myself from an earlier post on this thread:

... as written (irrespective of whether it is a good law) someone with a GRC becomes "legally" the other sex, and so can on occassion whether Boards or whatever be taken to be that opposite sex. But in the instance when the law recognises that sex is real, same sex (ie biological reality) is desirable (but must be proportionate!). So a biological male with a GRC can be excluded from a same sex service for biological females. (which more people could use but dont) ...

Also to be really boring, surely most of us want to change the EA so that sex means biological reality which then means SSE aren't needed and we get to the nub of the issue which is:

If there is no legal obstruction to providing women only services, how many people would actually do it?

(Sorry the issue of single sex services is more important to me than the FWS case issue which is about equal representation, in their example, Boards.)

As a lawyer, Foran is partly speculating about what a court would decide on these issues - which is not necessarily the same as what people on this board would like a court to decide.

IIRC his prediction for the Section 35 case was pretty spot on, so I think he's worth reading. He's an academic lawyer, he doesn't pretent to be a safeguarding specialist.

I don't think he's right either. I think he talks about things convincingly but I certainly don't regard him as the go-to, or listen and embrace unhesitatingly

I don't do this either, but I think he makes interesting contributions.

It is a question of interpretation, but in the R v Green case a GRC was the determining fact (that didn't apply to Green so Green lost) which would have made the legal comparator a woman rather than a man. I think that was an appeal judgment, so it's one of the few pieces of case law.

Regardless of your position on this it is perfectly legitimate for other posters to put forward ideas from lawyers / academics or others who do not share your view.

I don't think he's right either. I think he talks about things convincingly but I certainly don't regard him as the go-to, or listen and embrace unhesitatingly. I know he's become the expert for some GC groups/prominent individuals but I think there are other commentators who are more in the right ballpark than he is and who don't get much of a look-in (and this is a thread about KPSS ceasing operations...)

@IwantToRetire

Can you spell out what exactly you think Foran has got so wrong? What claim are you quoting? It's a question of interpretation, he's a lawyer. There isn't much case law.

Yours is just one opinion amongst a barrage of other opinions and there is no reason to think your insights are more correct than the next person with a view.

On the issue of SSE and provision of services he is wrong.

Nobody else says this. Not the people who implement it or regulate it.

If he is trying to say there is a loop hole that trans activists could use, then he should say that clearly.

He may well be right on other issues, but he isn't here.

So it is pointless quoting him, because as an academic dilettante he can indulge in speculation.

What is crucial if real life as lived and how the regulations work.

Can we please stop quoting Foran - as said up thread he "just doesn't get it".

I think people should quote who they please. Yours is just one opinion amongst a barrage of other opinions and there is no reason to think your insights are more correct than the next person with a view. This will be decided in the SC and in the meantime it’s hardly surprising that service providers and those running associations or sporting bodies will be nervous about implementing the SSEs.

I think Foran is useful because he describes very clearly how all the various moving parts of the law interact (it's not up to him to argue how and whether the tests set by the law are met in practice). I did though feel it excessively dry and legalistic to say that discrimination re gender reassignment will be harder to justify than re sex, when we all know that sex is the reason why we want to discriminate re GR in the first place. But he just sees different words that need parsing. Typical lawyer.

This will be tested in the BRCC case. And a couple of other ongoing cases.

Can we please stop quoting Foran - as said up thread he "just doesn't get it".

Even Nicola Sturgeon understood how the SSE work.

There are a number of people who for what ever reason or motive seem to be getting an ego boast by imagining they have something to contribute.

The facts are the SSE means men with a GRC saying he is "legally" a woman can be excluded from women (biological sex) only provision. The problem has been (and as far as I know no group or service provider has been legally challenged to say their service does not quality to be SSE) is too many people whether for financial reasons, or because it is just easier do not bother to set up SSE services. Including the friend of SS who didn't realise she could have invoked them and SS as someone who presumes to commentate didn't know and didn't help her do it.

The problem is that because the law says that "for all purposes" those with a GRC are the opposite sex, it means those wanting single sex provision have to justify it. ie the act has been written to prioritise the rights of a minority, over the rights of the majority. It would be like saying because x religions says we should all be vegetarians everyone is compelled to be vegetarian unless they can say there is a justifiable reason for them to be a carnivore.

Added which (and I know I am repeating myself) even if the EA was changed to clarify that sex meant biology, there is no reason to believe that single sex provision would increase. In the intervening period the prevailing narrative has been if not TWAW, about being "gender neutral".

So the issues here and now are not just can the law be clarified but can those who believe in women's sex based rights turn the tide of the relentless dominance of the pro trans narrative in the media, in politics, and perhaps even more influential popular culture.

If it can be demonstrated that women exclude themselves from situations where these men are to be included, would that change anything? Could this be used as a reason to exclude these men - because the purpose of the group isnt being met?

It's specifically spelt out in the notes to the Equality Act more than once that this can constitute a legitimate aim to exclude males regardless of gender identity.

To get a GRC a man needs a diagnosis of GD and two years worth of id in their new name.

If a women's group, service, or opportunity is legally allowed to exclude men, then what is in the Gender recognition process that gives that man with GRC the body, needs and experiences of a woman? I suppose I'm asking what in the GR process makes him different to any other man especially to the women in the group he wants to join? Shouldnt there be a burden of proof that there are significant differences between men with GRC and men without?

If it can be demonstrated that women exclude themselves from situations where these men are to be included, would that change anything? Could this be used as a reason to exclude these men - because the purpose of the group isnt being met?

The vast majority of the population would be much better off if these discussions centred safeguarding rather than rights.

If you can't keep the most vulnerable people in society safe then what's the point of having theoretical rights?

Foran is also completely disregarding safeguarding and safeguarding law.

There are safeguarding reasons for excluding men from women's spaces - namely that 98% of sexual offenders are male. Therefore keeping a space single sex (female) is a hugely successful safeguarding measure. Regardless of any 'rights' to not be discriminated.

There is a safeguarding duty of care of many public services which should take precedence over 'rights' legislation. Just as in schools it is explicitly written into Keeping Children Safe in Education that safeguarding law trumps data protection law. I.e. it's not justifiable to accept a safeguarding risk / failure / harm to a child because sharing data about safeguarding (which could prevent that harm) breaches the GDPR.

The problem is there's not much case law because the people affected are vulnerable and disenfranchised.

I really do not think Foran gets it. He talks a good game but even things like this:

"gender-based rights under the Equality Act"

are questionable. There is no such thing under the EQA. We have to hold the line and not allow ourselves to be talked into things that were never there to be begin with.