Keep Prison Single Sex closing

The exemption allows you to discriminate against men without breaking the law. Discrimination can be direct, indirect, or perceptive. So you can keep out people who look like men. Like we used to.

Micheal Foran has written extensively about this. He has said that a GRC makes it much more difficult to objectively justify excluding a man from women's services etc. Also he says that associations are not covered by the exceptions in the EA. So if sex includes legal sex (current law as per Haldane) a Lesbian reading group (for example) is not likely to be lawful. (this is only my interpretation of what he has said and it's quite complex so I may have it wrong but here is the source material for anyone who fancies a read)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4740870

Thank you @Hepwo

So we have the power to exclude birth males including those with GRCs, by using the exemptions. But this doesn't happen, because of lobbying, deliberate confusion etc (mostly based on the PC of GR).

So what is the point of legal sex?

Someone mentioned underlying intent. It seems to me that the intent was to allow a handful of shy well-behaved 'ladies' to use the women's toilets, and that has been undermined by the mushrooming numbers and bad behaviour. So the meaning of the law hasn't changed, but the proportionate and legitimate aim of protecting women from eg a broken jaw in the sporting arena, or an unexpected penis in the changing area, has gained new salience.

I hope that in a few decades historians will look at the craziness and shake their heads.

Yes, I don't know whether Haldane thought that two contradictory definitions with fuzzy borders could coexist, or whether she was kicking the can down the road for the next level of legal enquiry, as she didn't think it could be dealt with at that level.

Not really, given that she gave both interpretations in her judgement! I don't mean disengenuously, either, that seems to be the logical inference because the law is botched.

I think trying to include only GRC holders is where the risk lies but why would you do that? That half way position is of very limited use in reality.

I agree.

They didn't choose to ignore the exemptions, they forced anyone applying for funding or placements or any partnership or working for them or working with them or using them... to get rid of the exemptions

The Public Boards Act is where this all started but the FWS appeal in the SC will clarify the meaning of the word "sex" in the EA. The judgment will apply across the whole of the UK and will determine whether or not men with a GRC count as women for the purpose of the EA. If the Haldane judgment is upheld the only other options to prevent men with a GRC from counting as women in law will be to repeal the GRA or to legislate that sex means birth sex. If you want the detail it's all in their crowdfund page which I can't link (for fear of being deleted) but if you google "UK Supreme Court: The Definition of Sex in the Equality Act" it will take you to the correct page.

But what can they get wrong? If you exclude all men including those with a certificate no man can do anything.

I think trying to include only GRC holders is where the risk lies but why would you do that? That half way position is of very limited use in reality.

I do agree however that it would be a welcome step if we could just tell all men regardless of GRC that they aren't welcome in our spaces. And have that backed up by official guidance and the authorities.

There is the risk of a discrimination claim though if they get it wrong.

Someone does need to study the behaviour patterns of women who have taken testosterone & had surgery, if they end up in a women’s prison. No doubt their past trauma and confusion, possible autIsm, potential of sexual abuse etc will mean they need help. Prisons are chaotic & not great places for people with MH problems. The fact they are stronger due to T, will also lead to problems for other inmates & staff. Who will be keeping check on this vulnerable cohort of women?

There's no burden of proof on a service provider.

The appeal is about the public body board inclusion of men isn't it? They might lose that but still have yet more clarity from the supreme court that men could have been excluded if it was considered a legitimate aim by Scotland Gov. Scot gov didn't want to.

Maybe Scot gov think men are superior, maybe they are a bit afraid of the men that want to be seen as women, maybe they have the hump that they were challenged and have dug their heels in, maybe they feel sorry for men. Who knows. But once they had made their decision they were unwilling to change their mind about it and continue to escalate higher and higher up.

Interesting about that thread @Signalbox. Always instructive to see what gets watched and deleted.

I agree that they have used this to obfuscate but it's actually irrelevant if you use the exemption to exclude GRC holders too.

I agree it's irrelevant in theory. The problem there is that they just say that they are women. How do you prove that they are men for the purpose of the exemption? We all know that this group has a disproportionate number of males who enjoy gaslighting women in plain sight, that's part of the attraction.

What we can't have is confusion, where 'sex' is sometimes 'sex' and sometimes 'gender', and 'sex' sometimes means 'legal sex' and sometimes means 'biological sex'. It's an utter nonsense, currently.

What we all have is a sex. What 5 or 6 thousand have is both sexes, the second one is actually only a "legal" certificate.

Those with both sexes can be excluded on the basis of their biological sex. Their opposite sex certificate is irrelevant if the service is single sex and uses the exemption.

It's not actually that confusing really. I know men want us to be confused into submission, but I've followed it for years and this is the same understanding I reached right at the beginning.

I keep reiterating that public bodies wanted to include men. It was important to them to make men happy. They choose to ignore the exemptions.

There was an thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago but it got pulled for some reason. Mumsnet never said why. Lot’s of accusations of “transphobia” iirr simply for exploring it as an idea.

I don't think haldane "got it wrong"

If FWS win the appeal Haldane will have got it wrong won't she?

Changing gender is nonsense though. If no one else has a gender, what's even changed? The GRA and the PC of GR need to go.

I agree that they have used this to obfuscate but it's actually irrelevant if you use the exemption to exclude GRC holders too.

Which is legal as Haldane said!

Men always turn this around and tell us we can't prove their shifty behaviour thefore they're innocent.

There's no burden of proof required by the exemptions. That's just a tactic deployed to intimidate.

Using your eyesight is fine!

This law needs to be absolutely clear and easy to understand.

If lawyers and people who've followed the ins and outs for years can't grasp it or be sure of it, then service providers and the general public can't be expected to either.

We can't have 'legal sex' as a category because it's too confusing.

We can perhaps have 'sex' and 'gender', that roughly makes sense and most people can understand the difference.

Sex is sex, biological, immutable.

Gender is arbitrary, context-dependent, and yes, could be changed by law, fine, pointless, but fine.

What we can't have is confusion, where 'sex' is sometimes 'sex' and sometimes 'gender', and 'sex' sometimes means 'legal sex' and sometimes means 'biological sex'. It's an utter nonsense, currently.

That's the purpose of Kemis proposed amendment isn't it?

It doesn't "scrap" legal sex, it just reiterates the truth that it's a different group of people who are the opposite biological sex that the exemptions can apply to for the purpose of exclusion.

I don't think haldane "got it wrong" . It isn't great in that public body scenario because it's stupid and it would have been fair to use the exemption. She agreed that in effect the Equality Act allows for biological sex and legal sex to be treated as the same if they don't want to use the exemptions. I don't dispute this. The Scottish government didn't want to exclude men. They didn't want to. They wanted to include men and still do.
This is a public sector body that serves the wants of men and goes to court to enforce the wants of men. That's the actual bloody problem.

She states that the exemptions work and trans people can be excluded using them even with a GRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63956604

What people seem to be saying here is that because these circumstances have been agreed to be lawful it's always unlawful to exclude legal sex certificate holders. She didn't say that at all.

She said it's "not limited to" biological sex. Which is true. She goes on to say the exemptions can limit to sex and exclude GRC "sex" however.

I expect that the Supreme Court will say that biological sex alone is a fair ground for discrimination based on sex and the exemptions can apply to men with a GRC. No idea what they will say about this public body decision though. I think the public sector attitude sucks frankly.

It seems until the supreme court says it (that exemptions fair and can exclude GRC holders) there's a lot of risk aversion and threatening behaviour from culture war proponents and disappointed men.

I said earlier that risk averse public sector bodies stuffed with prevaricators and stupid believers are the ones escalating higher and higher up the decision making chain. We seem to have reached the top?

I know a lot of angry men attempted to trash the EHRC via non UK bodies but that fell on stoney ground didn't it.

Perhaps they will appeal to aliens next.

I have a lot more confidence than some about the supreme court I suppose.

I think this is it. I started out optimistic and I do hope we’ll win but in the meantime nothing is certain and I think that hurts women because service providers etc can’t be certain they won’t be sued and even if they are sued and win it’s still time and money and hassle and your business might fail.

All you have to do is look at the Sall Grover case in Australia or the JY v beauticians case in Canada to see that the process is the punishment when the law is not clear. Sall’s App is no longer active and many of the beauticians closed their businesses. Even where the law is clear (with the exceptions) orgs seem reluctant to implement them. I mean why on earth are the police still pursuing a policy that will allow men to strip search women in custody? This should be a straightforward case of the exceptions in the EA being utilised? It’s likely because they are listening to activist lawyers who are misrepresenting the law.

Personally I agree that it’s as clear as day that sex means sex in the EA and it’s how the GRA interacts with the EA that is the problem. So the obvious solution is to campaign to repeal the GRA but what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Repeal of the GRA won’t happen any time soon if Labour win power.