The patience of saints ECHR compliant Policy Writing thread for Civil Servants, Third Sector and HR people.

I’d say slightly different - no awards schemes or political affiliations of any kind

I am not a policy writer. However, I feel that if this policy writing is undertaken there should be reference to and consideration of data. This is to get rid of the confusion around sex and gender that is exacerbated by changing sex markers on official documents.

Adapted from the statement made by a group of academics at the University of York. And so easy to do in place of any of the so utterly unashamedly one-sided statements out there:

“This judgment, which states that ‘sex’ for the purposes of the Act refers to the ‘sex of a person at birth’, was handed down after a case in which women’s interests were represented by a grassroots group supporting sex-based rights, and trans women’s interests by the Scottish government and Amnesty International. National trans advocacy organisations were also offered the opportunity to contribute on behalf of individual trans people, in line with standard Supreme Court process.

We believe the judgement provides clarity on the meaning of sex in law, thereby mitigating ongoing misogynistic opportunism and harm to trans people in a fraught area. For example, we are reassured by responses by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and organisations such as the British Transport Police, as the judgement has placed much-needed pressure on these organisations to uphold the law by providing female-only facilities and services. Such responses will protect women’s safety, privacy and dignity, by enabling the full participation in society of vulnerable females including victims of male violence and members of religious minorities. However, the judgement also highlights trans people’s status and needs.

It is important to note the Supreme Court emphasises the ongoing protection of trans people from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, and asserts the importance of their access to appropriate facilities, too. However, it appears that long-term misrepresentation the law by multiple public institutions which have encouraged trans women to use female-only facilities and services has led to lost opportunities to promote and fund provision for these people. We are keen to support such organisations now as they redirect their efforts towards this.

As such, we recognise the complexity of balancing of the of rights of women and trans women. This is especially the case in relation to the inclusion of trans women in women’s spaces. Female members of our society clearly require specific accommodations for their lived biological experiences, including but not limited to: menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage, and menopause, and their statistically proven vulnerability to violence perpetrated by males including both “cis-“ men and “trans women”. As feminists, we see the weaponisation of women’s desire for these accommodations to vilify them as TERFS, bigots or fascists and silence their voices, as utterly shameful.

However, in addition to the importance of recognizing the female experience, we also recognize that womanhood may be seen as a complex, gendered construct which is, in contrast, not biologically given or legally bestowed, and is, rather, lived by a wider range of individuals, including both women and trans women. From this perspective, the rights of trans women and women may be seen to overlap.

As academic experts on sex and gender, we further acknowledge the existence of Differences of Sexual Development (so-called “intersex” individuals) and are concerned by the weaponization of such conditions to support arguments that biological sex is not ‘self-explanatory.’ It Is self-evident that every single human to existence is the product of a male and a female reproductive system, making biological sex one of the few true binaries in nature. However, it is also self-evident that there are natural variations and outliers within this which must be accommodated. We feel that this should be on the basis of these groups’ own unique needs.

We view this judgment and the damaging responses to it such as threats of violence levelled at feminists as part of a broader trend of backsliding on women’s equality, which is also harming marginalised groups and gender nonconforming people. Discrimination does not exist in isolation, and the stripping away of women’s legal protections (now re-established in law) has threatened us all. The reality of sex has been subsumed into and confused with a gendered construct of “lived womanhood”, leading to the loss of previously well-functioning single-sex facilities, services and associated social contracts, including the quiet accommodation of transwomen in female-only spaces. The assertion of this undefinable quality of “womanhood” has resulted in intensified regulation of the borders of gender expression, while denying a simple truth: that women require specific accommodations acknowledging their bodily reality, beyond which they are wholly autonomous individuals unlimited by reductive “gender identities”.

Our support for women’s rights, LGB rights, and trans rights, including safe and inclusive healthcare and sanitary facilities for all, is steadfast. As such, we are delighted by the Supreme Court’s confirmation that the 51% of the population known as “women” retain their legal rights and words; that trans men retain vital access to maternity protections; and that lesbian same-sex attraction, recently homophobically described as a form of “racism”, is recognised as real and also legally protected. We also recognize the challenges the judgment presents to trans women in particular, and are keen to do everything we can within UK law to protect this group, starting by adding our voices to calls for third spaces (alongside the male toilets a proportion already use, accessible toilets and evolving gender-neutral provision) to accommodate them fully alongside women.”

It may not be the right place, but it would mean such a lot to me - to so many women - if anyone reading this could appreciate how profoundly distressing it is for us to see so many proudly one-sided official responses to the judgement.

These are actually frightening in their implicit - and overt - dismissal of women’s legal rights. It’s been less than 100 years since we won the right to be recognised as a distinct political demographic with unique needs and the right to advocate for these needs, in the vote. And yet now, once again, our calls to be recognised as such are condemned, denied and dismissed as absurd. It was only 25 years ago that women could be subjected to rape by their husbands by law, an abuse possible only because of the immense physical differences between the sexes - and yet, now, we’re being told that our biological reality doesn’t exist, or doesn’t justify our caution.

This judgement has determined that women’s rights have, once again, been denied on the basis of our sex: the case was about the definition of a woman, after all. It was needed to yet again assert the rights we’d thought we’d one: to be recognised as distinct from the males who voted on our behalf and appropriated our very bodies. In this context, it is simply not appropriate to respond to the judgement with emphatic statements of regret that this discrimination cannot continue. It has already persisted for far too long - and our ongoing fight against it relies on at least acknowledging its existence.

In this context, to try to explore my feelings and what I think would be a more fair - “inclusive” even! - response, I made my own attempt at writing a more balanced statement (first posted on another thread). I freely acknowledge that my own bias in favour of women’s sex-based rights shows through, but what I think is key here is that 1) I at least acknowledge that another group is affected and has differing views & 2) I try to do so in a respectful way. This attempt at balance and empathy should be the absolute least we can expect as women. I’d hope for more, but would settle for this. The alternative that I’m seeing, in which we simply do not feature, appalls me.

If I can write something more nuanced myself just as an intellectual exercise, those employed to do so most certainly can.

Please, do so.

The way an equality impact assessment is supposed to work is to bring to your notice whether you might be indirectly discriminating against people with a protected characteristic or even a subset of a PC, eg your disability policy is great for wheelchair users but doesn't work at all for the visually impaired.

That's when an organisation should say, "Of course, we didn't think of that, let's amend our proposal accordingly."

In practice, in some bits of the public sector (not wanting to name any names like the Welsh Government) an EIA sometimes seems to mean "We asked Stonewall and they said it was ok."

Most public sector policies already go through something laughingly referred to as an equality impact assessment. To make sure that the sacred caste people with protected characteristics are not discriminated against by policies, or that suitable mitigation is put in place.

What would be awesome would be if equality impact assessments did the job they are intended to.

Have you had further thoughts @woollyhatter ? I too am not a policy writer but can recognise and applaud sensible suggestions...

Good thinking @theilltemperedqueenofspacetime 100% important to hear from all, rather than selected groups, and to recognise when feedback is dominated by a group focussed on one of the protected characteristics and lacking from others, and seek to remedy this. I am so aware that there are certain groups of women who often self-exclude and are invisible such as religious groups and those who have suffered abuse

and @DuchessofReality -totally agree and think this is a good extension of the first principle

@woollyhatter - brilliant idea for a thread. 100% endorse your first principle - it seems so obvious and I still do not understand why so many cannot see this.... while accepting it needs strong women like us to look at this.

I'm going to send your first principle to someone senior who is grappling with this in a specific situation at the moment....

Polls, surveys, votes etc involving stakeholders must involve all stakeholders, be anonymous, and supported with detailed explanation of terms.

bump

Before signing up to any 3rd party awards system, which awards points for specific policies, consider whether this is likely to lead to favouring one group of employees over another.

Little bump.

Superb idea for a thread.

I'm not writing policies and will leave it to those in the know, but will be delighted to keep this thread bumped.