Supreme Court ruling: can women’s groups still choose to allow trans women?

[Blackdow]

I’m just looking for someone to explain it to me. Sorry 🤦‍♀️.

Now that’s it’s been clarified in law than trans women do not come under the “women” category in the equality act, so we can use the single sex exemption to keep them out without fear of being sued, can place still choose to allow them?

For instance, a sexual assault support group for women or a woman’s group of any kind was previously being told they had to allow trans women as the equality act was being misrepresented. Now, the single sex exemption can be used properly so trans women can be told no. But what if they group wanted to allow them? Is the single sex exemption optional? Or do they now have to follow it? I’m just trying to make sure I understand it.

AI says different... more importantly, I think in law the 2 constructs are different.
All human social concepts are made up ... and can change, when we want.

that would assume that everyone is aware that sex and gender are different.

I believe that in law, they are different things (Supreme Court may rule eventually to confirm that, and probably will). Language evolves, words change meaning, & people can learn this difference. It's not THAT complicated, even for old codgers like me can figure it out.

People who wanted truly single sex spaces are now armed to get them. Be happy... and let the people who want to create "single gender" spaces have them if they want. Doesn't have to be a conflict or complicated.

Did you mean to cut out the context around that statement, being specific about people who might not have either the language skills or capacity to understand how and why some people use sex and gender interchangeably as they consider them the same thing, how some use gender where sex is correct out of politeness and how and why sex and gender can be also considered discrete through a second wave feminist perspective of biology and social conditioning? Not about old codger at all.

@Blackdow I hope you don’t exclude yourself from a space that is helping you.

The SC decision confirms that single sex means biological sex. Your group has been operating (unwittingly?) outside the law. Now it has been clarified. So your group has two choices.

1. Remain a women’s only group and only allow biological women to attend
2. rebrand as a mixed sex group and ensure all men (not just transwomen) are allowed to attend.

If your group does not choose one of those two options, I suggest you formally complain in writing. Also check where their funding source is from, as if it is from a public sector body, the additional issue of public sector equality duty would also be relevant, meaning that choosing option 2 (and thereby getting rid of a women’s service) could constitute a breach of this.

Depending on the decisions the EHRC comes up with. And the changes your group makes can impact the outcome. Many "women's only" groups across the UK have operated as if 'women' referred to gender not sex (as not all trans people have GRC). Many groups label themselves in ways that don't align with the legal definitions of things, relying on social definitions rather. I've also seen many women's groups open themselves up to non-binary folk too.

Is your group labelled specifically as a "single-sex" space or a "women's" space? I ask because, depending on your group's view of trans people, they might take this opportunity to exclude trans women due the new legal definition of women now being sex based, though this would open the group up to trans men (who are female at birth).

Alternatively, if your group think favourably towards trans women, they could keep the label "women's" space and include somewhere in fine print that they are operating based on gender and not sex, which would free them up of consequence of 'misleading' people. Again, this is speculation as the EHRC might come up with differing guidelines on how to label such groups and spaces. So your best bet is to wait and see.

They are not correctly applying the single sex exemption.

If trans women are included then it is not a single sex group and so they cannot lawfully exclude men.

They need to make it clear that it is a mixed sex group.

You are correct- they cannot describe themselves as a women’s group or single sex group if they permit trans women. They can offer a mixed sex group, but that might be indirect sex discrimination given that stats on who commits sexual violence and who are the victims

I know of an event which has a name that does not include the word 'woman' but advertises itself as for women and those who identify as women. Seems that as it does not call itself a women's event, that would not fall foul of the SC ruling.

EHRC published interim guidance on Friday night

t.co/NgyutUBn0F

On what lawful basis are they excluding most men from a mixed sex group?

Surely if they continue to advertise as single sex they won't actually attract the transwomen they are hoping to offer support to, as based on the new ruling any advertising will sound like it is a group for biological women only.

@Blackdow , you may be able to explain it to the group as making it clear that TW are welcome. Otherwise TW might default to thinking that they weren’t.

So wording like “for cis and trans women” might work.

(I know cis is controversial but the organisers of this group probably use it)

As someone who is experienced with individuals where English isn't their first language the idea that gender is different from sex isn't that difficult to explain, especially when it's a concept seen worldwide. If you can't explain it in English well enough for them to understand simply pulling up google translate to explain it in their native language isn't that difficult and in my experience, I find it works quite well. It also isn't that difficult to explain it to someone who cognitively doesn't understand complex concepts, as there are so many methods that have been developed to explain it in simple terms.

I don't know exactly what you meant by "second wave feminist perspective of biology and social conditioning". I find it a little ridiculous that people assume that the outcry around this ruling are from people who lack common sense or a firm grasp on biology, considering biology recognises that sex isn't binary and is in fact a spectrum (by the simple fact that intersex people exist). Though rare there is in fact several instances of people who's bodies have changed sex biologically speaking. The law is unfortunately quite outdated and a lot of the outcry comes from people angry at the fact that instead of taking this into account or pushing for reform, the Supreme Court has instead stuck to old ways of thinking for the sake of 'keeping the peace' and maintaining the status quo.

If I misinterpreted the last part of your post and went on a pointless tangent (which I actually had to keep short because I could talk a lot more about the specifics), I apologise. I just like science as it's my background.😊

Intersex people are not a mysterious third sex in between male & female, they are people who are either male or female and have a disorder or difference of sexual development

How charming.

I don't think groups like that actively exclude men, but rather rely on social "pressure" (?) to mitigate men coming in. For example groups in my area do allow men, but since it's advertised as 'for women' (including trans women and female presenting non-binary folk) very few men opt to include themselves. To each their own.

No human has changed sex

The SC judgement states that the problem with services being for genetic women and transwomen is that they are being discriminatory against men who do not claim a trans identity. If you include some males then all males have an equal right to be there. The legal case to enforce this would have to be a male survivor of sexual assault wanting to join the group but being excluded due to not being trans - that would be illegal discrimination.

For a woman to be the plaintiff, they would have to claim that they were being discriminated against on the grounds of belief (previous judgements have upheld that the belief that transwomen remain male is valid and worthy of respect in a fair democracy) if the presence of males makes them unable to attend. If you have been attending despite the known presence of transwomen (males) it would be difficult for you to be that plaintiff.

Nothing will chance without court cases like these though.

I don't think you can advertise it as being "for women" if it is actually mixed sex though.

I think for a woman to be the claimant they'd have to argue that it was discrimination against women not to have a single sex service.

H

https://www.sciencealert.com/remote-town-in-the-dominican-republic-some-girls-turn-into-boys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCevedoce
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981

You might argue that these kids 'were always boys' but sex isn't that simple. I think it's a little silly to define sex as 'what genitalia we have at birth' when science makes it so much more complicated than that, especially where intersex people are involved. Using chromosomes is silly too because people with XY chromosomes can have vaginas at birth and grow on to have a perfectly functional uterus and birth healthy babies. They are genetically male but functionally, biologically female.

When you get into the weeds of how to define 'sex' and what characteristics define it, it gets far more ambiguous in a way that the binary system we use doesn't account for. And you can't call these people outliers when there are millions of them, possibly more since checking chromosomes isn't common practice for newborns.

It may be possible a woman using a supposedly single sex services which allows in trans identified men could claim harassment under the Equality Act

If A is the service provider then allowing men in a female single sex service could be unwanted conduct relating to the PC of sex (IANAL)

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

No, “biology” doesn’t recognise sex as a spectrum. Actual developmental biologists say that this assertion is hokum. People with DSDs do not represent additional sexes.

Though rare there is in fact several instances of people who's bodies have changed sex biologically speaking.

Really? Do you have receipts?

They are either a single sex women's group (allowed under the Equality Act) or they are open to everyone. They can't have a group that allows just women and trans women and excludes others. That's not a single sex exemption.

What they can do is something like what the "women's network" at my work does, which is advertise themselves as for promoting and supporting women and open to all women, trans women, non binary individuals and anyone with an interest in subjects relevant to women. Which doesn't explicitly exclude men who identify as men, but does mean that the odd one that turns up very rarely comes back again.