New EHRC guidelines - women only jobs

Really? Have you spent time standing next to a TiM

I didn’t say I can never tell, I said I can’t always tell and there are plenty of examples out there of other people getting it wrong. And if a fairly well passing TW has F on his identity documents how are recruiters supposed to know that someone isn’t female? Didn’t Mridul Wadhwa say they got the position in ERCC by pretending to be female. This won’t be a unique circumstance.

@Signalbox
Really ?
Have you spent time standing next to a TiM
(even a many decades post surgery, with all the paperwork in the world)
and NOT guessed ?
Really ?

It took me less than 3 seconds to guess and even DH realised in less than a minute.

500 million years of sex selection biology is not altered by paperwork

Even Lab rats know who the males and female staff are

But women can spot a trans a mile off. We can spot someone acting suspiciously a mile off. We can spot someone up to no good a mile off.

I can’t always tell. There will be plenty of other women who can’t always tell either.

Yes and recently someone claiming to be "non binary" who was refused appealed and the refusal was overturned as had a lady passport and driving licence.

There are also worrying cases like this where men refused GRCs by the panel go on to get them via the courts, as detailed by this tweet from StillTish:

‘This case is a man who was thrice married, had 7 kids, spent time in Jail for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life. A single judge granted him a gender recognition certificate.’

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2019/10/10/gender-recognition-certificates/

They already can exclude trans people with a grc if the role meets the criteria. Such jobs include working with women who have been sexually abused. What is not included is medical services as there is not an occupational reason to be female, it's simply preference - you are entitled to a chaperone.

The rules for discriminating in the workplace are very strict but quite possible if you follow the criteria (my own job is protected on a different characteristic) so if any orgs are not choosing to hire using the exception it is them not the law that is doing it if you know what I mean. 99% + of jobs should not be affected as they have no reason to have a requirement

The legal and paperwork side of this is already a ludicrous mess. But women can spot a trans a mile off. We can spot someone acting suspiciously a mile off. We can spot someone up to no good a mile off. We will simply avoid engaging with or even going anywhere near trans people. What scares me is a situation where I am too old or incapacitated to avoid them or run away. Hopefully those intent on causing harm to others will be shunned by society and their behaviour firmly confirmed as anti-social and unacceptable by the vast majority of people, thus making it hard or even impossible for them to act out their desire to harm women, regardless of whether it is legal.

Exactly - how do you enforce the SSE when someone you suspect is male but has all documents including BC saying they are female?

There would have to be a central body, similar to bds process, to check that the women is female, and not a man with a GRC.

It would be time consuming, costly and wouldnt be needed if the government didnt issue female birth certificate needles to men.

The easiest thing would not to reissue birth certificates in the incorrect sex.

Women only jobs should be just that - occupied by biological women only. If I need intimate services I want a woman, not a man who acts and dresses in the way he thinks women act and dress.

There's a comment on the article about this in today's Times:

"...If you identify as a woman, should you not also identify WITH women, and respect their concerns?"

This is so spot on. If women said "we don't want childless women to offer advice or services relating to childcare", many childless women might object and try to make their case for why they might add value, but you can be damn sure they wouldn't take to the streets to aggressively protest against women with children or call for them to be punched or shot.

And if the vast majority of women with children were firm in their view that they didn't want childless women providing the services, the childless women would ultimately respect that.

It's just how women are - we are caring people who respect others and more often than not put ourselves out to accommodate others.

Trans 'women' are so unlike women it is really is a joke now that they claim to be women at all.

Exactly - how do you enforce the SSE when someone you suspect is male but has all documents including BC saying they are female? If you refuse them on the basis that you suspect they are male and then they sue, are you allowed to request a Dr’s sex inspection or chromosome test as part of your defence? TRAs have successfully muddied the waters. As an aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if the issue comes up with TIFs who’ve been on T but not changed their BC. I think employers are just going to continue allowing self ID for an easy life.

but the real issue is not enough employers, service providers can be bothered to use the SSE to create genuinely women only services, provision

Who can blame them if they are worried they will have to objectively justify it.

But if a job has been properly advertised using the SSE and a TW goes ahead and applies then they are acting illegally

It should be criminal.

So I still don’t understand how the SSE are workable in real life situations. If you offer a service and you decide it is proportionate to make use of the occupational requirement and decide you are going to exclude males with a GRC how can you know that someone with F all over their identity documents is male in situations where they pass relatively well as female? Do you just have to hope for the best that men with a GRC will respect the basis on which the job is offered? They really shouldn’t be allowed to change the sex marker on their BC.

But if a job has been properly advertised using the SSE and a TW goes ahead and applies then they are acting illegally

But of course when an employer, as in ERCC, is part of illegally advertising a role, and the charity commission fails to admonish them, then it seems (and maybe not just in Scotland) that you can breach the law.

It is extraordinary that no part of the Scottish establishment has in any way made any attempt to ensure ERCC acts legally.

Just confirms that when it is about women's rights, not even the bodies existing to ensure those rights, think they are important enough to do anything about those who breach those rights.

As the guidance says:

Schedule 9 also permits an occupational requirement to exclude transgender persons where it is objectively justified, and this can include those who have obtained a GRC.

This is not just about TW saying they should be included, but the real issue is not enough employers, service providers can be bothered to use the SSE to create genuinely women only services, provision.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre being the most prominent.

As a prominent TRA mentioned on X, as soon as you get your biological sex changed on your birth certificate following your GRC issuance, then you tear up the GRC as you have no further use for it. You can go round and if anyone questions you, you are a masculine looking woman, and you have your birth certificate to prove it.

Akua Reindorf here saying they can be excluded even with a GRC

https://x.com/seeninhr/status/1813246024221065623?s=61&t=n0HKoTYUTribHJPPdVXsVQ

Is it saying that if you make use of the occupational requirement you can allow men with a GRC to take the role if you want but you are also entitled to exclude them. But you can't include TW without a GRC even if you want to because they are not legally female?

Exactly - the GRA created these "legal women" but Stonewall created the "I believe I am so you must" woman.

So the guidelines aren't new, but just a push back against the inroads Stonewall and others have made, and some employers chose to go along with it.

But whether you go with the actual guidance or the Stonewall version, it is the GRA that means that sex is the only protected characteristic that has to pretend that someone who doesn't have that characteristic does have it.

ie the GRA isn't about equal rights, it is in fact social engineering.

It is Government telling society you have to not just respect someone else's belief, but have to accept and act as it were fact.

On the subject of Labour making it easier to get a GRC:

I did an interesting YouGov survey last week. There was a section about attitudes to Labour’s possible new policies. One had various statements to which there were four possible reply options (excuse not typing them all in full, but I hope you get the idea) plus “don’t know’.

The options: I would be (happy)/(unhappy)if they did this (and would)/(but would not) think Labour were breaking its promises if they did it

The statements:
-Increasing VAT to fund public services

-Bringing the UK back into the single market

-Making it easier for people to transition from being a man to a woman

-Increasing council tax to fund public services

-Increasing capital gains to fund public services

-Introducing amnesty for illegal immigrants

-Continuing to allow MPs to have second jobs

-Increasing national insurance to fund public services.

What do you notice?

No GRC : birth sex no matter what the identity
GRC : birth sex in some situations

so again, the number of people who MUST be using self ID who are now on the wrong side of the EHRC
is substantial

This has been said before but the EHRC has never confirmed it in its guidelines so explicitly.

Yes that's how I read it.

I think the new guidance is confusing can someone help me understand pls.

Is it saying that if you make use of the occupational requirement you can allow men with a GRC to take the role if you want but you are also entitled to exclude them. But you can't include TW without a GRC even if you want to because they are not legally female?

"Occupational requirements under Schedule 9 must relate to having a particular protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act 2010. The protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means a person’s legal sex as recorded on their birth certificate or their Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This means that a sex-based occupational requirement that an applicant is a woman – as is common within specialist support services for women, such as rape counselling – will include women who are recorded female at birth and also transgender women who have obtained a GRC."

"However, Schedule 9 also permits an occupational requirement to exclude transgender persons where it is objectively justified, and this can include those who have obtained a GRC. A ‘sex-based’ occupational requirement to be a woman under Schedule 9 cannot include transgender women who have not obtained a GRC, as they do not have legal status as women under the Equality Act 2010."