We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition - EHRC

They are not remotely committed to protecting the privacy, dignity and safety of women. Anything they say is just lip service. The vast majority can’t be bothered to care about women. Too many of them actively relish gaslighting and disparaging women. Only a tiny fraction have any even the slightest interest in protecting women.

I've just bumped the Let's Go Back to 2007 thread as well as linking it here. The collected resources on it really do show how we got here.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · Yesterday 22:17

“A person being searched can object to being searched by any officer; this officer will be replaced by another member of the team to conduct the search in their place. This is regularly done in practice for many reasons, such as a way to de-escalate conflict.”

I thought that other Police forces had banned it altogether? To be honest, perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can imagine that a Police officer so replaced might complain that a hate crime has been perpetrated.

Yes particularly looking forward to seeing Ben Cooper KC in action!

Yep. I like that phrase a lot.

It has a certain onomatopoeiac effect of highlighting that it's currently a grim situationv for single sex spaces, in both senses of the word grim.

It will be interesting to hear all the legal arguments from the various parties.

Totally agree. There are some very competent legal folk on the side of common sense. Hopefully enough of them to tip the balance this time, by drawing out the nonsense within the current situation.

If they lose then we will see exactly how committed all politicians are to women's rights and what they mean by "halving VAWG"

<waits>

If they lose, there is no such thing as sex in the biological sense. Technically, we're already at that point I assume, given this is an appeal. With Labour on the cusp of making GRCs easier to obtain, this case couldn't be more important.

It's been managed up to now as regards policy etc on the "sex fudge" basis, as @ArabellaScott calls it. It will be interesting to hear all the legal arguments from the various parties.

The existence of the SSE is nothing to do with trans or GRCs. It's to make single sex spaces legal. Without the SSE all spaces and services would have to be mixed sex. And if the GRA was repealed or had never existed, we would still need the SSE.

This is what needs clarification.

Necessary is clarifying that the single sex exceptions in the EA aren't just about trans people. The PC of sex was created to replace the older sex discrimination act. As other pp said they are the legal means by which we can have any sex based protections at all.

I was having an interesting discussion yesterday IRL where we touched on the forthcoming case. Even though the person I was talking to was clearly very clever, it was interesting and not at all surpassing hearing how baffling he found the whole subject of sex versus gender identity. I have spent months on this board asking questions and slowly building up an understanding to feel confident that I've got enough foundational knowledge about all the interrelated issues. I'm still learning more all the time. Most people don't need or want to focus on it in quite the same obsessive way as I do 😁 (unless I understand it, I can't help my autistic daughter - it's quite the motivation).

He was in healthcare so I raised the point that if FWS loses the appeal, the NHS could find itself in the farcical situation where it has to write to all women with a prostate health reminder, just in case they miss any of the "women" whose GRCs mean that there is no distinction whatsoever between women with prostates and women without them (at a data and legal level).

Another point we discussed was that if they lose, there would be no such thing as homosexuality in a legal sense. Homosexuality would become homogenderality (for want of a better word), for anyone with a GRC. By this point in the conversation he was finishing the sentences with me.

If they lose, there is no such thing as sex in the biological sense. Technically, we're already at that point I assume, given this is an appeal. With Labour on the cusp of making GRCs easier to obtain, this case couldn't be more important.

The case really does highlight why GRCs are a problem too. So hopefully we'll get clarification first that sex means biological sex and then it logically becomes the beginning of the end of the GRA... and we drag ourselves back to common sense where birth certificates accurately reflect someone's sex, the NHS can deliver sex-specific care without having to do mental gymnastics to figure out how and single-sex sports, services and spaces are protected.

Edited for clarity.

But it’s not just the OP who has “misunderstood”. The EHRC also talks in terms of the SSE in general enabling exclusion of males but then separately in terms of excluding TW as if it requires an additional level of consideration.

The part that the OP seems to have misunderstood is the purpose of the SSE.

@IwantToRetire said:

If it wasn't meant to be that with a GRC you changed sex, then you wouldn't need the SSE.
The existence of the SSE illustrates that they did intend a GRC changed your sex for all purposes.

The existence of the SSE is nothing to do with trans or GRCs. It's to make single sex spaces legal. Without the SSE all spaces and services would have to be mixed sex. And if the GRA was repealed or had never existed, we would still need the SSE.

She is right that the interaction of the GRA with the EA is complicated and that is what this case is about.

But it’s not just the OP who has “misunderstood”. The EHRC also talks in terms of the SSE in general enabling exclusion of males but then separately in terms of excluding TW as if it requires an additional level of consideration. If the SSE enabled a straightforward exclusion of all males then why not just word it like that? Also when the SSE are invoked why is there an option to exclude TW from that exclusion (as with the GOP)..

There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

I don’t understand this. If the law isn’t complicated why would it even end up at the SC with two previous courts and the EHRC getting the law wrong? Regardless of the result there is clearly a level of ambiguity as the law stands.

Necessary is clarifying that the single sex exceptions in the EA aren't just about trans people. The PC of sex was created to replace the older sex discrimination act. As other pp said they are the legal means by which we can have any sex based protections at all.

If that's how it had ended up, and all males were counted as men, ie it only referred to biological sex, it wouldn't be particularly complicated, no. But as OP correctly points out the issue here is that the Gender Recognition Act has created a person who is to be treated as the opposite "gender" in nearly all cases, with its own exceptions. But the EA (and trans activists were disappointed with this at the time) itself maintained some carve outs of its own for "biological" women.

The part which isn't complicated is that the single sex exceptions exist in order to legitimise things like single sex services which would otherwise be deemed discriminatory by the EA.

The OP seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the single sex exceptions.

That base part of the law really isn't complicated. You're going to need to grasp that fundamental logic before getting on to the complicated interactions with the GRA.

I don’t understand this. If the law isn’t complicated why would it even end up at the SC with two previous courts and the EHRC getting the law wrong? Regardless of the result there is clearly a level of ambiguity as the law stands.

This is an important thread.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Indeed.

Those exceptions were broadly done as "single-sex things are permitted in some circumstances" and then you have the discrimination exception to allow those, hence the "single-sex exceptions".

That base part of the law really isn't complicated. You're going to need to grasp that fundamental logic before getting on to the complicated interactions with the GRA.

Exactly.

The SSE are specifically about the notiont that those who are a "legal sex" have the same rights to the custom and practice of biological sex.

They aren't. They are single sex exceptions for all single sex needs. They apply to everyone.

Trans activists lobbied to make sure they reflected the GRA "gender" but there were still some carve outs.

That might have been the stated reason why it was brought in but it simultaneously conferred several other rights and any attempt to remove those rights will be met with a tantrum of epic proportions. It would be great to see the GRA gone but I think the most we can hope for from this Labour government is that they don’t make things even worse by allowing more men to easily obtain a GRC. Atm I don’t hold out much hope since they appear to be on a mission to piss off as many people in as short a time as possible.

Hopefully by the time they come to GRA reform the SC will have made it clear that the EA gives men the right to trample women’s rights, that the sss are not straightforward to implement, and that TM with a GRC have no protection in law when pregnant.

But always find it strange that all these people making all these statements never refer to why the SSE were written, ie because they did intend those with a GRC to be taken as being "legally" the other sex.)

Yes this is the flaw in the FWS position isn’t it?

I think though, that this whole statement demolishes the Labour position that there is no problem with how the EA interacts with the GRA and that the EA genuinely provides protection for women’s SSS. If FWS lose they cannot continue to pretend that everything is fine as it stands. I hope the judges will be very clear about the problems (which extend far beyond the SSS.)

As I say, nothing whatsoever to do with sex "discrimination".

That's nonsense. The EA fundamental's starting point on sex, like the other characteristics, is "no sex discrimination".

Without the exceptions to that base rule, you would not be able to have women's sports, women's prisons, or women's anything, because to exclude men from them requires discrimination on the basis of sex.

Therefore any such "no sex discrimination" law had to carve out enough space for women's sports. (I think in the 2000s our Parliamentarians would have been up to the task of figuring out they were about to outlaw them if it didn't).

Those exceptions were broadly done as "single-sex things are permitted in some circumstances" and then you have the discrimination exception to allow those, hence the "single-sex exceptions".

That base part of the law really isn't complicated. You're going to need to grasp that fundamental logic before getting on to the complicated interactions with the GRA.

I thought the GRA was designed to allow tw to marry when same sex marriage was illegal. Surely we don't need it anymore?

The SSE are specifically about the notiont that those who are a "legal sex" have the same rights to the custom and practice of biological sex.

No, they're not. The single sex exceptions exist in order to make single sex services and spaces legal. Without them, everything would have to be mixed sex (anything else would be discrimination). Separate men's and women's toilets and changing rooms can only exist because of the single sex exception. It's not just about trans people.

The problem is with the interaction of the single sex exception with the GRA, which allows people to legally change sex. How can something be for women only if some men are legally recognised as women?