Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Rejoice! For there is another consultation! (EHRC)

86 replies

ArabellaScott · 21/12/2024 17:25

And lo, an angel came and said: it shall be completed by January the 3rd.

And a voice from on high said: Sex Matters has guidance for thee

And also: A glass of festive refreshment may help and perhaps a mince pie

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/ehrc-consults-on-code-of-practice/

https://sex-matters.org/take-action/respond-to-the-ehrc-consultation/

'The consultation is open for anyone to respond to, whether you respond as an individual or as an organisation.

  • Individuals can include people who give advice, lawyers, academics, campaigners and ordinary citizens wishing to challenge service providers.
  • Organisations can include service providers, associations and public bodies and organisations that give advice to others.
You should respond particularly if you are a service provider – a business, charity or public body that provides services to the public – or if you are an individual who uses services (everyone!) or an advisor. It will take you about 15 minutes to complete the survey. '

EHRC consults on statutory code of practice - Sex Matters

What needs improvement?  Be clear on the protected characteristics Give examples to help people think about harassment in relation to sex and gender reassignment Correct the section on sport, which is wrong in law  Stop promoting case-by-case assessmen...

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/ehrc-consults-on-code-of-practice

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
ArabellaScott · 04/01/2025 08:18

Well done, everyone. If nothing else, we can hopefully let them know that women service users are aware of the issues and care about them.

OP posts:
socialdilemmawhattodo · 03/01/2025 23:12

Sorry I hadn't realised it was 5pm. So used to these things being midnight.

JumpingPumpkin · 03/01/2025 18:12

I did something. Bit useless really.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 03/01/2025 14:36

Done

I covered off gender identity not being a PC, misgendering, loss of single sex provision being a detriment to women and sports.

Boadicea2 · 03/01/2025 12:47

Done - I did Sex Matters minimum suggestions to comment on Chapters 2 & 13. I did c&p some of their legal comments as well as my own views. I hope that doesn't put me in the "reject" pile.

Original poster
ArabellaScott · 03/01/2025 08:07

Sounds lovely, thank you. Bit early but it's the holidays....

OP posts:
JanesLittleGirl · 02/01/2025 22:49

ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 21:29

Done!

There's time yet! And free text boxes! And port!*

*Depending on your personal drinks cupboard

I think that I can offer you a small glass of 25 year old Sprinkbank single malt for your efforts.

Original poster
ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 21:29

Done!

There's time yet! And free text boxes! And port!*

*Depending on your personal drinks cupboard

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 21:09

Sex Matters said it would take 15 minutes, but they didn't reckon on getting sidetracked by gems like this:

Example11.50 A restaurant that offers a 'dining in the dark' experience is unlikely to have to turn its lights on for a deaf customer who needs to be able to lip read to communicate, as this would fundamentally change the nature of the service being offered.

Eating in the dark is the most fucking stupid idea I've ever heard.

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 21:07

focusses on glass of wine

mutters

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/01/2025 20:38

Done and dusted Wine

Mmmnotsure · 02/01/2025 18:52

Perhaps have the port and cheese later - as a reward?

Original poster
ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 16:59

Port! Great idea.

There's Wensleydale left, too.

See, this is how I ended up drifting off into cheese and booze induced stupor last time.

OP posts:
Mmmnotsure · 02/01/2025 16:51

Thank you for the (gentle) kick @ArabellaScott

Have completed. 😇

They are lucky they restricted it to 250 words. They would have got a novel otherwise.

Sending you ?port? for this evening.

Original poster
ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 16:14

Planning to settle in with a glass of something fortifying and get it done tonight.

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabellaScott · 02/01/2025 09:03

Well done! Deadline looms, any stragglers!

OP posts:
UtopiaPlanitia · 02/01/2025 01:22

Completed!

I hope my effort was sufficient to the task but having completed a few of these governmental consultations over the last few years (from the perspective of an individual) I'm never sure what exactly the readers of the completed consultations will take notice of and what they won't care about.

With this consultation, I actually liked the fact that there was a word limit as I felt less pressure.

ellenback21 · 01/01/2025 19:28

Ok, I've found this example in the Sex Matters guidance and it appears that the confusion is not mine, it is the EHRC's😃

ellenback21 · 01/01/2025 18:27

I was on top of this until I got to chapter 13:

Example
13.74 The organisers of a women’s fun run are developing a policy in respect of the participation of runners who are trans women. They decide to allow trans women to participate in the event. Their reasons for this are because they wish the event to be as inclusive as possible and because the event is a non-competitive event whose primary aim is to raise charitable funds.

Since trans women (without a GRC) have a (legal) sex of male, then this fun run now includes males. Therefore surely it has no grounds to discriminate against any other males who wish to join and so is an 'open category' fun run, not a 'women's fun run?

Leafstamp · 01/01/2025 12:27

I've just completed this. Sex Matters guidance makes it straightforward and also makes me realise the whole topic is really not that difficult - single sex facilities need to be exactly that. Men can't be women, even with a piece of paper, FFS!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 01/01/2025 01:43

This is the wording of the EHRC guidance produced ln 2021 and updated in 2023. Self ID by the back door, via the chilling effect of it possibly being "unlawful" to exclude a male identifying as a woman if you can't fulfil an objective test of whether it is "proportionate" or a "legitimate aim" to do so. I hope the new EHRC guidance improves this.

A service provider provides single-sex services. The Equality Act allows a lawfully established separate or single-sex service provider to prevent, limit or modify people’s access on the basis of gender reassignment in some circumstances. 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 will be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether or not the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

Ereshkigalangcleg · 01/01/2025 00:34

What has happened is that trans activists have continually and purposefully suggest the SSE dont mean that.

I agree, but you have to include the government in "trans activists".

The EHRC themselves have previously put out guidelines stating that the circumstances to exclude all so called "trans women" from single sex spaces for women are very limited and exceptional and only on a "case by case" basis. We've been discussing this for years @IwantToRetire - did you miss the many threads where this was discussed in detail? I can link you some.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 01/01/2025 00:28

No it's not common law.

It's the common law principle underlying the whole act. Exclusion and "discrimination" are exceptions. The common principle is one of inclusion of everyone.

IwantToRetire · 31/12/2024 23:21

Ereshkigalangcleg · 31/12/2024 09:46

However, where an organisation invokes the SSE, a GRC does NOT give a man with a GRC the right to be part of the provision of, or user of, a service correctly advertised as being SSE as per EA.

It doesn't automatically confer that right but the common law legal principle is inclusion, not exclusion and case law and guidance suggests It's a higher bar to exclude a man with a GRC, on a case by case basis.

No its not common law. Even Labour admitted that on occassions biological women have the right to give and accept services only from other biological women.

It is clearly set out with the example given of Rape Crisis.

What has happened is that trans activists have continually and purposefully suggest the SSE dont mean that.

The trouble is that to invoke the SSE it has to be proportionate, and guess what, what women think is proportionate is not what men in charge of funding etc., think is proporationate.

That's the issue. Which isn't even about trans rights. It is about the underlying male sexist, misogynistic society that trans culture flourishes in. Because the patriarchy says women dont matter. Therefore it is easy for TRAs to claim their rights take precedence over women's.

It is about the willingness of politicians, the media and so called charities to think that trans rights are more important.

Not forgetting that 99.9% of the population have never heard of the SSE.

I wonder why those in power have never bothered to make clear that these exists.

Not worth the effort of promoting women's rights I would suggest.

Swipe left for the next trending thread