Good piece on current misreading of the SC ruling

Thank you for the share token, that was a good article.

Thanks that’s my understanding. This is going to be a drama I am going to have to gird my
loins

It's about perception. If a trans identifying woman passes sufficiently to be perceived as a man by users of a women only space, she can be lawfully excluded.

The full decision explains this, and that's what the article is quoting..

The perception of others is part of the Equality Act 2010 - you can be the victim of racist, homophobic, ageist, etc abuse if the abuser perceives you to be something even if you're not. You could be the victim of homophobic abuse even if you are straight, because the person abusing you thinks you are gay.

Another claim being made is that the Supreme Court excluded trans voices, because it refused an application to intervene made by two trans individuals. But the Supreme Court does not hear evidence about lived experience; it considers legal arguments.

(Italics my own)
Imagine having the arrogance, the brass neck, the sheer entitlement to think that your 'lived experience' would be of relevance to a Supreme Court ruling.

It reminds me of the Mitchell And Webb sketch, Send Us Your Reckons.

"You might not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon?"

This is what I’ve been reading. I will be having to deal with this at work. We have unisex loos and male and female. We have one TW - what do I say now? I would say the majority do not object to them using the ladies but do I have to say - use the unisex from now on? Any advice would be useful please.
As for policies - I will need to go through them to ensure we are legally compliant.

Excellent article and thanks for the share.

I didn’t follow this part though: In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.

Can someone please clarify? I thought this was about sex, not appearance?

It was interesting the bit on individual representation and personal interest. I gather from something I read that the Judge who was one of the individual’s put forward now resides in Ireland so the judgement would not have directly impacted them.

Thanks, Akua is very succinct in her article. Everything is explained clearly, with no fuss.

Love this article. Clear, calm, short, and truthful. One to share - I don't see how anyone can argue with it (not without looking very silly, anyway). The mention of the need to find a way forward to accommodate all people (a third space, obviously, like we've been saying all along) is really good, there's no way anyone can claim that this piece doesn't consider the needs of trans people.

This is an extremely useful article; thank you for the share.

Hell of a burn in that last paragraph.

Yes. This article has such brilliant clarity- I’m glad it’s quite short too, as I hope this is the one that ends up doing the rounds as it explains the situation so very succinctly.

IIRC, Reindorf was the lawyer who wrote that paper years ago telling everyone that what the SC has said now was the correct way to interpret the EA, and warning everyone that Stonewall’s interpretation was risky and almost certainly wrong, but employers didn’t listen.

Akua is another of my current heroes, along with NC.

That is a masterpiece of clear precis. The answer to almost every query or raised 'but but but' so far.

Another assertion that has confidently been made is that an employer or service provider must justify excluding trans people from single-sex provision in accordance with their lived gender, and that this must be done on a case-by-case basis. Reference has been made to the legal justification test: “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Again, this is false.

😎

And there we go.

While it is not compulsory for public things like refuges and gyms to have single sex provision (although this may be discrimination against women not to provide them, looking at Brighton services) they can either be mixed sex or single sex meaning women only. No exceptions. If any men are admitted then it is no longer a single sex service and all men must be able to access it equally.

For women this is everything we needed.

Now lets have accessible additional provisions properly set up for those who wish them, and we can all get on with life.

Great article.

Great article, thankyou for the share token Nightingale

Thank you for the share token. Good, clear article.

Really good. Loved this bit - no emotion ir bias involved.