Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

EHRC apparently didn't have capacity to intervene, when a man was appointed to a women-only job running ERCC. Maybe they'll find the time to act now.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/our-legal-work/our-legal-powers/our-litigation-and-enforcement-policy-2022-2025/our-0

'We have a range of enforcement powers, set out in the Equality Act 2006, which include:

• investigations (Section 20)
• unlawful act notices (Section 21)
• action plans (Section 22)
• agreements (Section 23)
• injunctions (in Scotland, interdicts) (Section 24)
• public sector duty assessments (Section 31)
• public sector duty compliance notices (Section 32)'

This bit might be worth a read:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/our-legal-work/our-legal-powers/our-litigation-and-enforcement-policy-2022-2025/types

'Types of cases and issues we are interested in hearing about'

'We are interested in cases and issues involving:

• serious sexual harassment, including where employers might have failed to protect a worker, and particularly involving insecure workers and those with other protected characteristics (for example, ethnic minority, disabled or LGBT workers)
• serious harassment related to sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and religion or belief, including where employers might have failed to protect a worker
• balancing competing rights (such as sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and religion or belief) at work'

(my bold)

'Playing a leading role in public debates about equality and human rights issues, including by balancing rights
The primary focus of this work stream is to exercise influence. However, where it would promote our overall aim to foster good relations, we may consider formal engagement in cases that raise a balance of rights issue (such as the interaction between the protected characteristics of sex, religion or belief and gender reassignment) and that seek to clarify the Equality Act in these and other areas.
...
In cases involving the balance of rights we may seek to intervene in cases where this is likely to promote the fostering of good relations. Generally we will intervene rather than fund cases because this allows us to best fulfil our role as an independent and impartial regulator.'

Oh please let them use their powers, please, please

Crickets are loud tonight. But I am confident that it will come though.

Because if it is peer reviewed, then it is linkable. Obviously, if we have not seen this convincing evidence, and perhaps you know the Houses of Parliament has seen it and been convinced that it should be prioritised above the EHRC interim guidance, then of course we will disagree with olivehelper.

Perhaps though, the evidence is as convincing as it has been presented and none of us have seen it yet. I would like to see it before I look at the consultation though, because it might be something I need to consider to adapt my thinking.

EHRC are supposed to enforce. They do have certain powers.

My, that's a fine tumbleweed you have there Helleofabore.

Am I right in thinking that there appears to be no oversight body who will force places like HOC to observe the law as clarified by SC?

I don't know, but it seems to me that if there isn't an immediate order by some such body, then observance of the law relies on individuals to challenge it, and that is quite an intimidating task for most isn't it?

I'm wondering what your views are, as I'm a bit shocked TBH at the stance taken by HOC about this.

My point was that our visitor yesterday was saying shite about article 8.

I am aware the HoC is ignoring the law. The story here is about political gamesmanship and labour not wishing to look like the bad guy...

Regarding signage (pictured). This is the sign for a universal toilet (mixed sex/ gender neutral). It has to conform to regulations.

If you wanted a toilet for both sexes then this is the sign.

I’m ready to write to my MP or anyone else who is relevant. For all the suggestions made by @MyOliveHelper that women, especially those on MN, are not willing to be activists, how do you explain terf island?

The same law says you should not put up a sign saying NO BLACKS so I think it will have some force behind it.

Wrong on several counts

"There's nothing to say you cant write women and trans women on the toilet door."

The Supreme court explains that you can't do that. This might be a good time for you actually read it.

You can have two protected categories providing all those in there are in both of them.

There's nothing to say that single sex facilities must be provided.

Yes there is. I won't list all the regulations here (it will give you something to do) but in very many cases that is exactly what the law requires.

For TRAs, it's like we just rolled back segregation laws

Only in your head because this was the law all along and you are not disadvantaged by this. Men who wish they were women can still use the men's facilities alongside other men like me. It's good enough for me, yes?

I hope you're not suggesting that you're ok withe me being disadvantaged

As for 'partly white' men are not partly anything ,but are in fact men. Science says so, 300,000 years of human existence and reproduction says so and the law in this country says so.

btw TRA stands for trans-activist not trans.

You just see the scale of mysoginy in society. And how dumb so many people are.

Ok home now:

Sex Matters AT SexMattersOrg
Lets talk about Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and toilets It is sometimes argued that Art 8 gives trans people the human right to use opposite-sex facilites. Is that right?

Article 8 concerns the right to respect for private and family life. It is quite wide ranging.

(1) Everyone has the right to respectfor their private and family life, their home and their correspondence.
This includes:
your information privacy
your autonomy
your bodily privacy
your personal identity

Everyone has the same protection for their human rights, whether they are male or female, trans or not-trans.

Article 8 is a qualified right.
It is important to read 8(2)... there are lots of situations where it is lawful to put limits on a person's privacy and their freedom to do what they want.
Those limations should be in line with the law.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
For reasons of:
national security
public safety or the economic well-being of the country
preventation of disorder or crime
the protection of health or morals
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Equality Act 2010 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 are laws that limit people's freedom. The Equality Act outlaws sex discrimination but allows single-sex services.

The HSWA includes responsibilties related to toilets at work.
This engages Art 8 and Art 8(2)

Providing a single-sex space requires excluding members of the opposite sex. The sex-based rule is lawful as it is justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

The Supreme Court confirmed that when the Equality Act says "sex" it means what it has always meant: the biological fact of being male or female. Having the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" does not change a person's sex (and does not require surgery etc...)

Other people can often tell, or have a right to know whether they will be sharing a space with people of the sam sex or both sexes.

Unisex (single-user) facilities avoid this question. They protect everyone's information privacy. But many people (particularly women) prefer more privacy from the opposite sex. Separate sex facilities protect bodily privacy and autonomy. Different configurations of options are all within the bounds of Article 8.

Some trans people argue that they need to use the opposite sex facilities or they will be "outed". But using opposite sex facilities infringes on the rights of the people they are intended for.

The EqA addresses the conflict of rights. Her rights v his rights and says "no". There is no positive obligation for the state to force, trick, or pressure people to share a "single sex" space with individuals of the opposite sex.

In order for laws and rules to be justifiable under Art 8(2) they need to be clear. Foreseeable rules protect everyone's rights.

This is core to the Supreme Courts judgement.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1925263218902995223?t=00uu7uGnSzWi5UTbOZ6_mQ&s=19

Sex matters have just posted a thread up about Article 8 (that's the privacy one).

It makes the point about the exemptions to this.

Basically for the purposes of Health and Safety it is an exemption...

It's a good thread. I'm out ATM so not in a position to CP in full.

Anyway, I’ll include it. Somehow.

Although I guess there’s a depressing consistency in that I suspect Johnson was more than happy for us to follow his example & party Covid away, just as they’d be happy to see organisations fail to implement the law here…

Or how disappointing it is that after their claims to rebuild post-Partygate trust they’re demonstrating that, once again, it’s one rule for them and another for us.

I’m still mulling over how to reply to my MP’s infuriatingly irrelevant references to the #toxicity of the debate in response to one about the SC ruling. Maybe I could weave it into that.

I thought perhaps an earnest letter thanking them for offering a model for how my workplace should now act? Could it shock someone out of their complacency or shame them? Or maybe it would just serve as self-soothing satire…

Doesn't the HoC have a security guard who identifies as trans? I seem to recall there was something about that ...

Patience my friend. Patience.