Rape Crisis Legal Case - Court Date!

I think you are choosing to miss the point.

Prior to the Court ruling the word woman could be used (appart from when implementing ie taking up the option of the SSE) to mean not just biological women but "legal women" ie those with a GRC.

So if you as a provider just advertise a service as being women only without clarifying that you were using the option offered by the SSE, then the service was open to being seen as including "legal women".

Not to say it was a service operating under the SSE would leave it open to misunderstanding.

Because the interaction of the GRC on the protected characteristic of sex created this dual meaning.

So yes, in the interest of women looking for a service that was genuinely women only, they should (or rather should have) clearly stated whether it was women as in the SSE or not.

If you remember this was the core of the case that led to Roz Adams going to court. That she was told she shouldn't tell a potential user that part of the provision of services could be by a trans woman.

logically if in the past the only time you could advertise for a post that was only open to biological women, this meant "for all other purposes" woman could include "legal women".

No. If a job is advertised as having an occupational requirement allowing it to be restricted to one sex, that meant 1 sex (ERCC notwithstanding). If it doesn't meet the condition to allow that, it is open to everyone. Not 'all definitions of women' but everyone - all men and women, regardless of identity.

And that is the same for other single sex exceptions - it's single sex or it's both sexes. You don't need to state that it falls under the regulations. (I don't know that you actually need to state it for jobs. Adverts do, but that may simply be to fend off timewasters and whingers rather than because it's required to do so.)

without implementing the SSE woman could include "legal women".

The SSE is not a thing you 'implement'.

I have been away from Mumsnet for a while but am so overjoyed at the ruling. Been thinking specifically about Sarah Summers’ case. I was dismayed that it had been dragged out so long, BUT coming after this clarification it’s surely a done deal now.

True for job adverts using the occupational requirement clause. But not otherwise. It has never been necessary to 'claim' the exception in advance.

Sorry - but logically if in the past the only time you could advertise for a post that was only open to biological women, this meant "for all other purposes" woman could include "legal women". Whether on the Board of a Company or in a sport, let alone a support service.

So under that set of circumstances to only use the word women and not clarify that it did or did not include trans women would always be open to misinterpretation.

And we know that TRAs exploited that because without implementing the SSE woman could include "legal women".

Although of course equally as bad was the TRAs acting as though "indentifying" as a woman was the same as a TW with a GRC.

So now when a rape support group says Woman, it means just biological women.

So all the ones that just offer mixed sex spaces, but call them woman groups will have to either make sure it is just bio women or change the name so it will be clear to everyone.

So well bloody done for fighting this. I got absolutely nowhere! I am so very sorry for your trauma.

I really wish I'd taken it further when RC refused to stop allowing men in.

Back in 2017 or 18 I was accessing RC and I arrived at my usual appointment only to find a male in the waiting room. It absolutely broke me and triggered a relapse. I actually managed to complain, but got nowhere. They said their funding relied on government and they said they couldn't discriminate against men.

Wasn't even a TW, just a bloody regular dude. They wouldn't compromise with offering men only sessions. Just lumped them in with women.

One of the worst times of my life. It was impossible to access any women's only trauma therapy. Not even Red Tent could help me. They just straight up called me a bigot and blocked me for asking if the trauma sharing circle was female only.

Those experiences made me a RadFem.

You had to specifically say it was women only under the Single Sex Exemptions.

True for job adverts using the occupational requirement clause. But not otherwise. It has never been necessary to 'claim' the exception in advance.

So anything prior to that ruling could claim they were within the law.

The law has not changed. The Supreme Court ruling clarifies the law as it always was.

As I said upthread, based on the law until clarified last week if you advertised as women only it included TW.

You had to specifically say it was women only under the Single Sex Exemptions.

ie the law as it was written meant that the word woman included both actual women and trans women (legal women).

That was the whole point of the court case.

To make it clear that in law the word woman should always mean biology.

So anything prior to that ruling could claim they were within the law.

And in fact you cant blame them. You can blame the then Labour Government and all the MPs who passed the equality act with this attack on women's sex based rights.

This wasn't an accident. This was deliberate.

To my mind it was in fact about social engineering and am glad to see that Kemi Badenoch used that description only the other day.

Good luck luck with your case I hope everything is going well and the SC judgement gives your lawyers lots of fodder for their arguments.

I saw this on twitter, which shows how unfortunately it is going to be necessary to continue pushing the issue through a courts. A rape crisis service in the North East says it will continue operating the service the same as before inclusive if trans women, and:

'Our definition of a woman-only includes transwomen and non-binary people who identify that women’s services are right for them.’

x.com/LWSNorthEast/status/1914747280101453930

That was my understanding too. If you specify it's women only it needs to be.
And that has always been the case, despite misinterpretation / chosing to do otherwise. So when organisations haven't adhered over the years they were in the wrong and to my mind should take responsibility. Pleading ignorance shouldn't be an excuse.

But I may have misunderstood.

So glad to hear from you, @IamSarah! I'd been wondering what had happened to your case.

You are one hell of a woman for hanging in there so long. I'll be rooting for you every single bit of the way ❤

Ironically I think prior to the SC ruling (which is when this case arose) it was the other way round.

ie if you didn't advertise the group as operating under the SSE, but just used the word women, it would not (even if most people would think it would be) be only biological women.

So in a related way the complaints against a trans man being appointed to ERCC were based on the fact not that he was a trans man, but that the post had been advertised under the SSE ie the post only being open to biological women. (Not that any authorities bothered to investigate complaints.)

Which shows how bonkers the system was, given this was about supporting women who had been raped or sexually assorted.

The idea that you would ring a support service and start doing some sort of check eg "are you operating this group under the SSE of the EA"

In future (or as from now?) the court has said that in the EA the word woman means a biological female.

I may have misunderstood the SC ruling, but I don't think they can advertise having a group for women and then allowing transwomen in it now, it would have to be called a mixed sex group.

Does anyone know if that's right?

@IamSarah
Something went wrong with my choice of emojis so I will just say that I absolutely support you and have found a little cash down the back of the sofa for you.

Absolutely this.

Good luck again @IamSarah. I really hope there will be services to meet yours and other's needs soon.

@ProseccoStormtrooper

“This case is about protecting the right for some services to remain single sex spaces, by law, where this is the most appropriate manner of safeguarding the rights of women."

In saying the right for some services to be single sex by law, they mean that those services are required to be single sex, not that they may be single sex and that if they are single sex, it must be based on biology. not gender. On its face, the Supreme Court ruling does not require single sex services to be provided. Other rules (e.g., workplace rules for loos) may.

should the EHRC be intervening in your case!

I may be being thick as IANAL, but the press release says
“This case is about protecting the right for some services to remain single sex spaces, by law, where this is the most appropriate manner of safeguarding the rights of women. The rights of women to these spaces is vitally important and must be protected.
The law is not clear. More guidance is needed. It is hoped that this case will assist in clarifying the law and provide service providers with a clear legal framework.”

Isn’t this what the Supreme Court has just done?

My case is that this is indirect discrimination to women who want and need a single sex space.

We need some sort of group action against all local councils and other funders to ensure that when giving money to support services they make it mandatory that at least some (a sizeable portion) MUST go to single (biological) sex services.

This will still be going to court in exactly 5 months.

Is that another delay. I hope not. It is just scandalous that they have been so slow.

I hope you are doing okay, and think it is really impressive with how you have not let them grind you down.

Best wishes and hope you have a lovely summer!

@IamSarah

I was wondering what what was happening, especially following the Supreme Court decision. Thanks for the update @IamSarahand best of luck

Donated. Hope you reach your target

Good luck Sarah, hopefully the SC ruling will help your case