Trans sibling in law

I am not here to sell it, to quote Falkner few weeks ago when she was still trying to actively miss-sell her "interim guidance" as law (a position she has since retreated due to amount of lawsuits EHRC is now facing as a result): the law is clear, now everyone should just follow it.

GRC is law, you may not like it but it is.

There is of course an issue that it's entirely unenforceable in practice. As per GRA you can only ask about GRC status in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be a routine thing (we literally had judgement in ECHR handed down on that on issue on Wedsnday, in T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC it finds that doing so violated Article 8 of human rights) and without that, as per even EHRC Falkner's admission on tuesday in front of WEC this type of segregation cannot be enforced.

You aren't really selling the concept of a GRC here.

You seem to be explaining why they infringe on other people's human rights.

Not at all, the judgement absolutely removed rights from us as the change is on definition of what counts as sex/gender in this act, and the FWS specifically reworded it in a way that means possessing a GRA no longer applies. Which means where previously trans person with a GRA could access single sex services just fine, now they cannot, that is a direct loss of rights.

There is of course an issue that it's entirely unenforceable in practice. As per GRA you can only ask about GRC status in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be a routine thing (we literally had judgement in ECHR handed down on that on issue on Wedsnday, in T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC it finds that doing so violated Article 8 of human rights) and without that, as per even EHRC Falkner's admission on tuesday in front of WEC this type of segregation cannot be enforced.

Maybe worth a small reminder that updating gender marker on almost all documents in the UK, passport included does not require a GRC, and that came from another judgement as UK refused to make GRC process less annoying, so instead made changing of the document markers easier.

Aida has mentioned both.

> But if they are labelled as sex segregated (using the Equality act permitted exemptions to allow discrimination on the basis of sex) then this has to be on the basis of biological sex (as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling).

I will ask my learned colleague to provide on which paragraph of FWS they rely on for this I cannot find it, and I've read it too many times. And the link of application to Workplace 92, which I assume you rely on, is not tested in court, it's possible (and I did caveat that in) but far from a given.

You may be confusing it with EHRC "interim guidance" which is not law (Falkner own admission on Tuesday WEC hearing if you need a source), it's far far away from the law: first finish consultation, deal with lawsuits (I know of 3), present a bill, have it voted through parliament and so on, 6 months+ at the very least.

And I never thought I will have my English as 3rd language throw in my face, or the fact that I learned and practiced it mostly in context of USA. But ah well, what can you do with a strong argument like that.

And no one thinks the EHRC guidance is the actual law. It’s important though, as it sets expectations for organisations who want to create a female only space, which in itself is generally not obligatory. But when you do, as most women expect, it must be actually female only.

So, all the TRAs wailing that this judgement has taken rights from trans people are talking nonsense then?

Not at all, the judgement absolutely removed rights from us as the change is on definition of what counts as sex/gender in this act, and the FWS specifically reworded it in a way that means possessing a GRA no longer applies. Which means where previously trans person with a GRA could access single sex services just fine, now they cannot, that is a direct loss of rights.

There is of course an issue that it's entirely unenforceable in practice. As per GRA you can only ask about GRC status in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be a routine thing (we literally had judgement in ECHR handed down on that on issue on Wedsnday, in T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC it finds that doing so violated Article 8 of human rights) and without that, as per even EHRC Falkner's admission on tuesday in front of WEC this type of segregation cannot be enforced.

Maybe worth a small reminder that updating gender marker on almost all documents in the UK, passport included does not require a GRC, and that came from another judgement as UK refused to make GRC process less annoying, so instead made changing of the document markers easier.

> But if they are labelled as sex segregated (using the Equality act permitted exemptions to allow discrimination on the basis of sex) then this has to be on the basis of biological sex (as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling).

I will ask my learned colleague to provide on which paragraph of FWS they rely on for this I cannot find it, and I've read it too many times. And the link of application to Workplace 92, which I assume you rely on, is not tested in court, it's possible (and I did caveat that in) but far from a given.

You may be confusing it with EHRC "interim guidance" which is not law (Falkner own admission on Tuesday WEC hearing if you need a source), it's far far away from the law: first finish consultation, deal with lawsuits (I know of 3), present a bill, have it voted through parliament and so on, 6 months+ at the very least.

And I never thought I will have my English as 3rd language throw in my face, or the fact that I learned and practiced it mostly in context of USA. But ah well, what can you do with a strong argument like that.

Not at all, the judgement absolutely removed rights from us as the change is on definition of what counts as sex/gender in this act, and the FWS specifically reworded it in a way that means possessing a GRA no longer applies. Which means where previously trans person with a GRA could access single sex services just fine, now they cannot, that is a direct loss of rights.

There is of course an issue that it's entirely unenforceable in practice. As per GRA you can only ask about GRC status in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be a routine thing (we literally had judgement in ECHR handed down on that on issue on Wedsnday, in T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC it finds that doing so violated Article 8 of human rights) and without that, as per even EHRC Falkner's admission on tuesday in front of WEC this type of segregation cannot be enforced.

Maybe worth a small reminder that updating gender marker on almost all documents in the UK, passport included does not require a GRC, and that came from another judgement as UK refused to make GRC process less annoying, so instead made changing of the document markers easier.

Toilets/changing rooms in a shop or restaurant sports facility etc do not have to be sex segregated by law, except for staff.

But if they are labelled as sex segregated (using the Equality act permitted exemptions to allow discrimination on the basis of sex) then this has to be on the basis of biological sex (as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling).

It was clear that this labelling can be symbols, or words such as man/woman ladies/gentlemen or male/female, or any similar proxy.

It remains to be seen whether businesses choose to continue sex segregating their public toilets, or move en masse to
mixed sex facilities and risk taking a financial hit from people avoiding those businesses and taking their custom elsewhere. Or wait for someone to sue for indirect discrimination against females as they are at most risk of assault or intrusive filming in shared facilities.

Incorrect, you are making up terms based on no idea what, definitely not law, and especially not UK law which in it's wide body uses terms sex and gender interchangeably. FWS 2025 is first time there is attempt at some weird unity, but that only applies in scope of EqA 2010 (which means access to single sex SERVICES only, nothing else) until some court or legislation says otherwise.

What you are presenting is exactly the view had in late 90's after section 28 was abolished, where sure people can be "trans" but people can also just decide to ignore it and there was no legal protection against harassment that comes out of it. That's what was decided in Goodwin 2002 (and later affirmed in cases since) as not acceptable.

It even notes that while this change of sex may be an inconvenience to some of the population, the balance of right of the minor incontinentie for small segment of population vs inability to exist in dignity for transgender people is not proportionate, and thus decided that this must be protected under article 8. Because that's how you balance competing laws, take what one side gains, see what other maybe looses, and weight them together.

This is for example how we arrived at sometimes having to suffer a walk across long accessibility ramp instead of just 5 tall steps where there is no space to put both in, because for able people it's a minor inconvenience vs inability to participate for people with limited mobility.

So while you can still not believe in transgender people and their ability to change sex, just as you do not have to believe in nutrients or even human rights of any sort, acting on it by, for example, intentionally misgendering transgender people in the uk in public life context can be a hate crime, and unlawful harassment in the workplace and direct discrimination. Context and particulars matter of course and particulars, but if you know someone is transgender, and you intentionally misgender them while knowing well they do not invite it, you are almost certainly breaching the law.

It's almost like law is more complicated than a soundbite.

Not at all, the judgement absolutely removed rights from us as the change is on definition of what counts as sex/gender in this act, and the FWS specifically reworded it in a way that means possessing a GRA no longer applies. Which means where previously trans person with a GRA could access single sex services just fine, now they cannot, that is a direct loss of rights.

There is of course an issue that it's entirely unenforceable in practice. As per GRA you can only ask about GRC status in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be a routine thing (we literally had judgement in ECHR handed down on that on issue on Wedsnday, in T.H. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC it finds that doing so violated Article 8 of human rights) and without that, as per even EHRC Falkner's admission on tuesday in front of WEC this type of segregation cannot be enforced.

Maybe worth a small reminder that updating gender marker on almost all documents in the UK, passport included does not require a GRC, and that came from another judgement as UK refused to make GRC process less annoying, so instead made changing of the document markers easier.

Are you a solicitor or a barrister, @AidaP?

So, all the TRAs wailing that this judgement has taken rights from trans people are talking nonsense then?

Excuse my scepticism but I've never come across a UK qualified solicitor or barrister who writes in American English.

Yes - fully trained, not practicing as I got a better career.

And to the other misinformation like schools, this is where again knowing law comes handy, yes schools usually are required to provide single sex bathroom and changing rooms, but that once again is not part of EqA.

And for the other person yelling "but the judgement" please point out by which act of parliament do you think bathroom in a public place, like a store, is sex segregated (hint: does not exist, uk has bathrooms wild west with exceptions of specific acts, like Workplace 92 and few other acts providing some more definition for places like schools).