Trans women ban in single sex spaces

No, because the guidance distinguishes between birth sex and legal sex when determining who can be excluded, for instance from a women's refuge.

Wednesday's decision is about situations not covered by the guidance, such as clubs and shortlists, where safety etc is not an issue.

Wednesday can't possibly make anything worse, anyway. I think....

Repealing the GRA would not repeal the GRCs already issued
therefore a long term view needs to be taken

Yes. This is the thread of inconsistency and confusion that runs through the whole ideology. Even the GRA uses the words sex and gender interchangeably for no apparent reason without any proper definition for gender (very poor practice for a law).

HMPO, the NHS, the police and DVLA were all persuaded to record ‘gender’ instead of sex despite there being no actual definition or possible verification of this concept. It really is quite horrifying how they abandoned fact and reality on the say so of a tiny handful of trans activists.

Doesn't this all come unstuck, though, because the legal gender change of the GRC changes the legal sex shown on the birth certificate?

And so here we are.

That’s pretty much the gist.

I don't understand how this will work unless trans women who have a gender recognition certificate are also banned from women's single sex spaces.

It's not like there are bouncers on the doors checking IDs.

Thank you I shall look it up. Presumably using the disabled loo was too 'insulting and unpleasant' 🙄

And in the hospital case the judge found that the question of whether he was going to use the female changing room was inappropriate and intrusive specifically because an actual woman wouldn’t have been asked. This gives the impression that she thought he was entitled to use it in exactly the same way.

Absolutely, I’ve been of that view since 2018 or so.

Toilets were also an issue in the successful Jaguar Landrover case for which RMW et al claim that even non binary men can be protected under section 7 of the EA. I disagree, but it’s another example of what I’m talking about. The claimant took great offence to being asked to use the disabled toilet while “transitioning”. And the judge found in this male’s favour.

I recall the hospital changing room case. The transwoman sued and won because he was made unwelcome in the CR and no alternative was provided. To test the sex-discrimination point, we need the women to sue.

Lower court cases, as I said. There was a successful discrimination case in a hospital, and one in a pub, both in Yorkshire, and I think another on a ferry but maybe that one was in Jersey or something. Nothing explicitly stating yes or no to the matter of these males using women only spaces, but implying that they should be able to.

Even men with a GRC, which indicates they've made a legal gender (not sex) change, can be banned from single-sex spaces/activities/jobs, if doing so is a proportionate means for a legitimate purpose.

I think women & girls' safety and dignity is a legitimate purpose (and a pretty low bar for this EA2010 exemption).

Do we have any case law yet? Existing case law is about beliefs, not SSSs. Darlington, the Pool case, Survivors Network case and David Lloyd gyms all potentially bring in sex-discrimination.

Regarding the error in the article, I posted this earlier:

From the article:
"The change would prevent those who rely on self-ID from being able to access women-only care homes or domestic abuse refuges without an exceptional reason. Those with a GRC may still be allowed because that is the present position in law."
I don't think this is correct. Transwomen - with or without a GRC - can be excluded from such spaces under existing law, and that will not change.
The problem is institutions not availing themselves of the law and thus disadvantaging women. Telling them they can't call it single-sex unless they at least keep out all the legal males is a start, but only a start.

On reflection, the rules are tighter against legal males, but it's a subtle point. It's hard to make any of this clear to the casual newspaper reader.

We think it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to keep these men out of women only spaces, but courts don’t always agree, in the very limited examples which exist. If those lower court decisions had gone to appeal, maybe they would have been overturned. But they didn’t.

What do you mean “applying”? “Applying” for what?

Organisations don’t need to apply for anything to make a toilet single sex, but you may be called to defend excluding a male who identifies as a woman who (wrongly) feels he has the right to use them.

It's legal to exclude transwomen, irrespective of GRC status, from certain women-only things, provided it doesn't have an egregiously discriminatory effect (eg, they end up with no thing at all).

Institutions don't do it, because Stonewall persuaded them that trans-inclusion would fulfill a proportionate and legitimate aim of non gender reassignment discrimination.

We say, this leads to sex-discrimination, but there's no case law yet.

Avoiding sex-discrimination would be a proportionate and legitimate aim justifying trans-exclusion.

(Takes chicken across river, goes back for corn...)

I did see what looked like an error in the article, will go back and take a look...

I honestly wouldn’t worry about it @Cismyfatarse- GRCs are a grey area in law, hence the Supreme Court ruling on Weds.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would need a GRC
Wear what you want, call yourself what you want but there is no need for a GRC unless you have nefarious plans

Kemi Badenoch summed up the EA as a shield (against discrimination), not a sword. Therefore an organisation letting men into women’s spaces might well be subjected to a claim of unlawful discrimination but afaik there is no criminal act in itself.

Also I don’t think the effect of the GRC question has yet been settled in law - isn’t that the ruling we are waiting for on Wed?

It can sound quite complex - what misinformation are you challenging specifically?

Have no idea what tone check means.

But as the SSE are openly described in the public domain, and as you dont seem to think I am a reliable source, surely you would want to find out for yourself.

From those who haven't seen this clearly expressed in the news papers what has happened is that the EHRC has submitted to the Government an update of the Statutory Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations which was written if 2011.

Unless and until it is published no one, whether a newspaper or individuals will know what it actually says.

For all any of us know those who have leaked info to the papers have their own agenda, so the spin may not even reflect.

Please fact check before repeating media misinformation.!

I’m about to reject your guidance and offer another reframing as I did for the headline of the piece as written.

Please tone check for the intent before upbraiding others for misinformation.