New EHRC guidelines - women only jobs

Apparently you can, but he doesn't have to comply. If he does, you are not allowed to disclose that, without his consent. That may have been from the Legal Feminist.

Are you allowed to ask to see a GRC?

RedToothBrush · Today 14:56

Also this is your regular reminder that Mridul Wadhwa is still in a job and does not have a GRC.

My first thought was that he'll be applying for one tomorrow morning.

I sincerely hope that the court case clarified actual sex, not imagined gender. It beggars belief for me that anyone vaguely rational can think that a male is suited for that job, even if he's posing as a woman.

The problem is that Schedule 9 is permissive (in that service providers have permission to exclude men with GRCs), and too many services are entirely captured and won't make use of the permission, but will continue to oh-so-progressively employ men who identify as women and have a piece of paper to that effect.

I'm not saying today's ruling isn't a step forward. It's a material step forward and should stop nonsense like the ERCC saying they have to employ a man self-identifying as a woman as their CEO. It's also a welcome signal that positive change is possible, and we're slowly reclaiming ground. We're not there yet, but the tanker has turned.

IANAL - but this what I have gathered from reading.

That was my first thought too.

@Snowypeaks that's really useful and helpful to know, thank you 🙏

Yet people in this new government have sworn the opposite
Sorry, I meant the Labour candidates before the general election.

From the guidance:
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.

You have the right to privacy and dignity and I believe that counts as objective justification in situations like those you describe. Those human rights are absolute, don't have to balanced. So no doubt in practice you might be faced with a man claiming to be a woman, but the employer/provider would be within the law to stick to women only and you would be within your rights to reject the MCW.

I think the problem would be more with jobs like leading Breeze rides, or taking charge of a conference about women in STEM, or indeed "gender-balanced" boards etc.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court hearing. Everything is a sort of pro tem opinion until that case is heard.

This is why Starmer must take seriously calls to clarify that sex means biological sex in the Equality Act.

Yes.

I thought that the Equality act was supposed to allow exceptions for women only spaces - for biological woman, never with men with GRCs -
in certain instances, where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end such as in a rape crisis centre, or women’s refuge.

This EHRC guidance contradicts that.

Yet people in this new government have sworn the opposite, saying there is no need to clarify the Equality Act because sex based spaces are already allowed.

If the government make it easier to get GRCs, as planned, there will be more male ‘women‘ claiming this EHRC now absolutely clearly delineated right to work in female only roles.

GRCs should go.

In 2023/24, 1397 GRCs were applied for
102 were refused
14 were withdrawn
12 interims were issued

The current tribunal rules do not automatically hand them out

@TheColourOutOfSpace crikey. I believe everyone should be treated with dignity and respect no matter what but as someone who has learned the very hard way to assert my boundaries, and who requests female doctors, my answer will be NO as and when I choose. It's not negotiable.

I do think everyone would benefit from more legal clarity on this though. (We won't get it under this government.)

Absolutely. A GRC only costs a fiver.

I agree. Repealing the GRA is the only sensible way forward. A piece of paper does not make a man into a woman.

Does this mean that a male to female trans woman with a GRC, a penis and stubble can work in a women only rape crisis centre? Or if I request a female doctor for an intimate examination, they could be sent in?

It doesn't matter whether there's 3000 or 3, none of them belong in women's spaces 🤷‍♀️

Agree - repealing the GRA is the only logical way back. It would have been a tough call under the Tories - it will be an even tougher,virtually impossible one under Labour. But we need to start having that conversation publicly because when the wider public finally understands that any old bloke can get a piece of paper that permits access all areas, and the most he has to do is put on a bit of lippy (if that), then the Overton window will shift to finally put repeal in the frame. At the least, opening up the debate on it will provide a counterbalance to liberalising getting a GRC.

In the meantime my hopes are pinned on FWS Supreme Court appeal in November.

deleted

None of it is reasonable. None.

Repeal the GRA, it's the only sane position.

@Runor
Indeed. Predators predate.
Remember the head of a certain Yorkshire boarding school who bought the place to get access to children.
Certain roles should NOT be available to those who deny the reality we can all see (teaching, healthacre, police)

Talkinpeace how many women could each of those men be traumatising each year if they are eg working in a hospital doing intimate examination on women who don’t feel able to say no? Multiply that by your approx 4000 to get a truer indication of the impact

A step in the right direction - but useless if individuals can still falsify their history and sex on official documents with a GRC, especially if any plans to make it easier to obtain a GRC are carried.
Repeal the GRA

#RepealTheGRA

To March 2024, 5,524 certificates have been issued to those born male, 8,464 in total.
To March 2024, 2,097 certificates have been issued to those born before 1959
so around 1,300 of those people will be men of above retirement

leaving a maximum of 4,224 male GRC holders of working age
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2024
(table GRP 4)