The EHRC withdrew advice which stated that someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate should always be treated as their aquired gender. This was a mistake which they acknowledged and the guidance was withdrawn. Despite this someone is now attempting to sue them claiming that they somehow need to contact everyone who might have seen the mistaken guidance and tell them they made a mistake. The courts as yet have not accepted the claim - we shall see what they decide. My guess is that it is unlikely that they will take a claim very seriously based on guidance which contained an error and has now been withdrawn simply because they didn't prostrate themselves sufficiently to appease the gender critical movement.
Their current guidance on trans inclusion remains largely the same however, which is that those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be permitted to use spaces inline with their gender unless discrimination serves a proportionate means on meeting a legitimate aim. The Law Society agree, as do the Government, as do almost all lawyers in this field and the courts have backed this interpretation. Of course some people on the internet say they are all wrong because reasons. I know who I'd rather take legal advice from.
jj so when a government funded organisation deliberately issues false advice to many many organisations you don't think they should be made to tell those organisations that they have misadvised?
Anyway, it went further than that and also had an incorrect list of protected characteristics which for an advisory body is a pretty poor show.
The government does agree with us re. single sex spaces. Liz Truss stated it in her speech last September (ish) and the law is very clear - did you read the link I attached? The Law Society and much of the judiciary have been trained by Stonewall and taken false advice from the EHRC so I'm not surprised they agree. What proof do you have that 'most lawyers' agree - have you asked them all or are you just looking at the ones who align with Dentons/Stonewall?
If you didn't get a chance, here are the relevant bits:
Single sex services are permitted where:
only people of that sex require it;
there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.
In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified. (for avoidance of doubt this means each case ie. type of service, not on a per person/service user basis as Stonewall would like us to think)
Specific examples:
These exceptions would allow:
a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;
a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;
a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;
separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;
a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.
Gender reassignment: paragraph 28
Effect
739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified. (see example below)
Example
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
Someone that has the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment does not automatically obtain the rights and protections of the opposite sex. The comparator for a transwoman is a male who isn't going through transition.
The 5000 GRC holders are treated slightly differently but still don't have full access to single sex female spaces. Ironically, it is many of the GRC holders that are campaigning against self-id because they recognise the risks that will introduce.