Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

It does not detract from the fact that over the past decade, males have been able to access women's spaces despite a law 'recognising that many different groups have rights and must be balanced' being in place.

I think it's relevant that we have had a Conservative government for 9 out of the last 10 years, and Conservatives don't prioritise human rights issues. It took a very long time to convince them that it was necessary to listen to a bunch of feminists, and (with some honourable exceptions), many only paid attention when they realised they could use the issue to attack other parties.

Sadly many people who identify as progressive and left wing (Islington Council) also have a rather sketchy understanding of the human rights framework, but it is at least imbedded in our laws.

I’m in with the in crowd!

Agree that we are different countries, with different approaches and legal frameworks. It does not detract from the fact that over the past decade, males have been able to access women's spaces despite a law 'recognising that many different groups have rights and must be balanced' being in place.

The current government needs to robustly reinforce this recent clarification of existing law. If the people charged with overseeing the laws of the land can't understand something as simple as this, then it will add to the overall perception that they can't get anything right. If they appear to not be able to get anything right - then people will start to look for an alternative. They already are.

It is good to remember that the Matterhorn still exists in Summer. It is not just for winter sport.

Love the way that despite claiming to be a "women" you still use the misogynistic put downs. Leopards, spots....

Judging by the first post, it likely involves kleenex.

There was a time when repealing and nullifying the GRA and existing GRCs seemed harsh. In the light of the endlessly performed behaviour of men in this women's space alone, no, it really doesn't. It seems entirely sensible and necessary.

"How can you 'botch' guidance that males should use facilities designated for men, females should use facilities designated for women, and the definitions of 'male' and 'female' are the biological ones?
Not exactly rocket science, is it?"

Nailed it, @MarieDeGournay

@FranticSemantics it is beyond time that TRAs sucked up their wants and put womens needs first. If they can't do that we will end up with a reform government and noone wants that.

’Women's/Men's/Disabled facilities are restricted for use by people belonging to the designated group. Islington Council asks you to respect this'

It is really very clear what is happening when male people will ignore a sign such as this and use a female space. It is not stealthy at all. It is blatant. It is patently obvious who is and isn’t respectful in this situation.

I hear you - I didn't say that the EO was good though. It has far reaching negative implications that are affecting females in the US. It sickens me.

I used it as an example of how I think Reform may go if (god forbid) they get in. I agree with your point, they will go the same way as the US for certain. That's why this constant questioning of the SC ruling, as if it's the most complex problem in the world, has to cease. The current government should be all over this - making it clear in robust terms that the law is the law.

How can you 'botch' guidance that males should use facilities designated for men, females should use facilities designated for women, and the definitions of 'male' and 'female' are the biological ones?
Not exactly rocket science, is it?

There's a quibble about provision of single-sex toilets being required, advised, mandated, preferred, regulated, or suggested by the Equality Act, Building Regulations, Workplace regulations, Health and Safety legislation, or whatever, but Islington Council manages a lot of buildings which will already have the standard women's/men's/disabled configuration, and which have for decades operated successfully on trusting the users, plus some recent unisex toilets, so where does the 'botching' come in?

A sign saying 'Women's/Men's/Disabled facilities are restricted for use by people belonging to the designated group. Islington Council asks you to respect this'
puts the onus on the individual, and the SC ruling provides a definition of the 'Women's/Men's' designation, in case anyone isn't clear about it.

The good men will stay out. AidaP won't.

America is a different country, and both Republicans and Democrats value individual freedom over collective responsibility. That informs their approach to everything from gun law to health care.

In the U.K. all progress on this issue has been made within the framework of equality law, which recognises that many different groups have rights and they must be balanced.

"One of the first things to go has been initiatives to get girls and women into Engineering and STEM."

These programs were notoriously abused by TIMs, the absolute worst male cheaters. Really you should have picked a better example for pernicious effect of of Trump's EO.

Article 8 protects a limited right to privacy.

In Y v. Poland the ECHR ruled that there is no right to have a sex marker changed on a full birth certificate.

@AidaP

In your opinion about stealth and privacy, do you believe that a person who has a transgender identity should or shouldn’t disclose their sex before sex with someone who doesn’t know?

I have been told by a Rolls Royce employee that as America is their largest market, they have withdrawn all their Equalities initiatives to comply with Trump's order.

One of the first things to go has been initiatives to get girls and women into Engineering and STEM.

The backlash is here and it will come for anyone who is not a white, straight, able-bodied, Christian man (so many transwomen will be fine).

Reform will continue the work if elected.

This ‘genital inspection’ line is actually really revealing but not in the way those that use it want it to be.

I have said it before, but it needs to be said over and over. It doesn’t matter whether that male person has a penis or not. It truly doesn’t. They are male.

A female single sex space is not for someone doesn’t have a penis. Women are not male people without penises. Ever.

Just because a male person doesn’t have a penis, that doesn’t mean that he is a female person. It never did. But those very first misogynist male clinicians who have told these male people that they had ‘become’ female because of hormones and surgery should be held accountable for the negligence they started.

No. There is no need for genital inspections. Only a person with a lack of critical thinking ability and little grasp of logic would think this was anything but a weak gotcha. But it keeps being rolled out. By people who were obviously convinced by it. And if someone is convinced by that, what more do we need to know about them.

oh, cross post, Merrymouse!

The logical comparison for 'asking about sex' would probably be asking age for age-restricted services.

This is a very common thing for businesses and service providers to ask for, for example selling alcohol, or films with restrictions, etc. Also applies to many events and competitions etc, with age categories.

This seems similar to age restrictions - supermarket staff make assumptions about age many times a day, and it is up to the customer to prove their age if there is a dispute.

The only difference is that there is no way to legally obtain ID that doesn’t give your correct age.

Here's a link to his full response. For some reason I couldn't add it to my comment:

https://archive.ph/P7jmV

Thank you.

This is rather clear, isn’t it.

If you lift your skirt there is not going to be a vagina. Your documents can say F, if you die and someone studies your body there is no sign of female whatsoever. Your chromosome are xy. Why you want to use female spaces so bad? Is creepy.

Michael Foran had a detailed post giving his response to the EHRC's request for consultation. I agree with practically everything he wrote. This was his reponse to the Asking about sex at birth guidance:

"This part of the guidance is running together two separate issues: whether obtaining information about a person’s birth sex is necessary and whether the means used to obtain that information is proportionate.

"It should be made clear that if a policy is operating based on the single-sex exceptions in Schedule 3, then the rules about natal or biological sex can be clearly communicated to service users without the need to collect or process information about a person’s birth sex. Collecting and processing information about a person’s birth sex will only be necessary if the service provider has decided that this service is one which requires heightened screening before access to the service is granted (for example a rape crisis centre) or where a dispute arises in the context of a service which does not have heightened screening before access.

"For example, in the context of a single-sex communal changing room, information about birth sex will not ordinarily be collected. Rather, the single-sex nature of the service will be communicated to service user’s and the expectation will be that this will be complied with. In that context, a dispute may arise if a biological man uses the women’s changing room. Here, too however, service can be refused without any need to request information about birth sex, if that information is already readily observable. In this context, it is only where the service provider is unsure about the biological sex of a service user that information about birth sex may be requested.

"Similarly, in the context of a rape crisis centre where there may be more heightened screening processes, a service provider may need to ask about an individuals biological sex and should do that in a proportionate manner. A good example of this, would be the requirement of service user’s to fill out a form upon entry to the service which includes a declaration to the effect that the user understands that this is a female-only service that is only offered to those who were born female. Again, if there is a dispute over the biological sex of a servicer user, further information may be requested.

"It is unclear why a birth certificate would be requested. Under our current law, birth certificates are not a reliable record of biological sex. They cannot be used to verify biological sex. Requesting to see a service user’s birth certificate will be obviously disproportionate because there is no rational connection between the means chosen to verify biological sex and the aim of verifying biological sex. Birth certificates can’t verify biological sex.

This Code should state that, where biological sex is disputed, a service provider should make the best assessment they can, with the information available. Service providers should also be warned that providing a single-sex service which is in practice a mixed-sex service because the rules are never enforced, can lead to liability for any discrimination or harassment experiences by service users expecting a single-sex service."

The primary source for the Islington news is here:
https://www.islington.media/news/impractical-and-poorly-developed-equalities-guidance-risks-discrimination-council-warns

which is linked from https://www.islington.gov.uk/ under Latest News.

This page states that they have published their EHRC feedback, but there’s no link. Anyone know where I can find the document containing their complete response to the EHRC interim guidance? I couldn’t find it with their site search or Google.