For those who were on Good Law Project

[Tandora]

Please see the highlighted paragraph at the very start of the judgement. The judgement was about how to interpret certain words in the context of the EA 2010. They were not making judgements about what biological sex means, what gender means or how policy should be organised. That is not the role of courts. They are not scientists and they are not government. The role of the SC was to interpret the meaning of the words in the specific statute as it was written. Thats all. The end.

That article also seems to be about men and women in sports? Not age? And can you really lawfully justify a difference between a 9 year old and a 10 year old to meet a threshold for justifying age discrimination? surely this is more just about the logistics of how we organise services (limiting numbers, scheduling different times etc)?

No we can't have that service. The reason is because as soon as you allow trans identifying men access you lose the single sex exemption because it is no longer single sex.

Direct discrimination in the provision of services to the public is always unlawful except when a listed exception applies and all (I think) listed exceptions include the “proportionate means to a legitimate end” test. That’s not always the only requirement though, and even that is permitted only for certain characteristics. For example direct discrimination in public service provision on the grounds of race is never permitted - there are no exceptions. It’s not permitted for any purpose.

Indirect discrimination is generally unlawful except where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

to,answer your second question, no. The only way to keep males out is to have a single sex service. That means all males have to stay out. You can exclude some other people too, as we discussed, but the structure of the EA doesn’t permit you to operate a nearly-single sex service. As soon as you let in one non-male (as categorized by their birth sex) you can no longer rely on the single sex exemption as a shield against claims of unlawful discrimination from the other men you’ve excluded.

i know you think that’s should be a permitted thing; but the EA as passed by Parliament just doesn’t allow it. You’d have to get Parliament to change the law for that to be possible.

This bit, 195(7):

(7)A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to age discrimination, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in an age-banded activity if it is necessary to do so—
(a)to secure in relation to the activity fair competition or the safety of competitors,
(b)to comply with the rules of a national or international competition, or
(c)to increase participation in that activity.

Clutching at straws here. The judgement is clear, biological sex matters as it always has done in law. Just boundaries were pushed and pushed until legal clarification was needed. So, trans identifying women need to start looking at how mens facilities can be improved to fit in with their views/needs.

Tandora, I'm actually starting to get a little bit worried about your mental health. It really isn't healthy for you to be raging against the dying of the light like this.

The basic position is that the law doesn't treat men and women differently, because they have equal rights. (Equality.)

The Equality Act upholds this principle, but provides certain exceptions where men and women can be treated differently, because they have different needs. (Equity.)

Where the law provides for men and women to be treated differently, as per the exceptions in the Equality Act, men cannot claim to be women, even if they genuinely believe that that is how they identify.

Where the law does not provide for men and women to be treated differently, for example, in the queue at Sainsbury's, it is not the Supreme Court's role to tell a man that he cannot refer to himself as a woman, a flying spaghetti monster, or the non binary 20x great grandchild of Jesus Christ.

You have completely missed the point here.

The point is that a space or service for people sharing a protected characteristic must be run in such a way that achieves its intended objective from the point of view of those people.

The objective of a single sex space or service for female people is to create a single sex environment free from male people for the safety, dignity and privacy of female people. The presence of a person who is male or is perceived to be male by the female users of that space undermines that objective. Both a non passing trans woman and a passing trans man will be perceived to be male.

Fortunately, almost no trans people pass, and trans men who do pass probably don't want to use women's spaces anyway.

Right, but an advert for a football group for 10 year olds at 9 am would comply with none of these ?

Fair competition.

Direct discrimination in the provision of services to the public is always unlawful except when a listed exception applies and all (I think) listed exceptions include the “proportionate means to a legitimate end” test. That’s not always the only requirement though, and even that is permitted only for certain characteristics. For example direct discrimination in public service provision on the grounds of race is never permitted - there are no exceptions. It’s not permitted for any purpose.

That’s really interesting. So back to the question of signage? Can I not have an an advert designating that my (eg community ) group is for BAME women?

Indirect discrimination is generally unlawful except where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

👍🏻. For everyone or only for protected groups you mean?

to,answer your second question, no. The only way to keep males out is to have a single sex service. That means all males have to stay out. You can exclude some other people too, as we discussed, but the structure of the EA doesn’t permit you to operate a nearly-single sex service. As soon as you let in one non-male (as categorized by their birth sex) you can no longer rely on the single sex exemption as a shield against claims of unlawful discrimination from the other men you’ve excluded.

Why though? This is exactly what we are debating but you are just repeating it.

Why can’t one say:

ok I’m discriminating against men on the basis of birth sex, for x, y, z reason (legitimate aim).

However because x, y, z reason (legitimate aim) does not in fact apply to trans women , because (eg reasoning offered by court elsewhere as to impact of gender reassignment) , and because the impact on trans women (because a,b,c) would be much greater- for trans women this sex discrimination is a) not a legitimate aim and b) disproportionate , therefore unlawful, and also being not legitimate and disproportionate in its application to trans women because of their gender reassignment , indirectly discriminates against them due to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So therefore unlawful.

None of this logically changes, however, the lawfulness of excluding non trans men.

You are clearly more expert in this area of law than me, but you have not yet presented an argument why this is not entirely compatible with both the act and the judgement. ( It is of course incompatible with the draft guidance).

ok I’m discriminating against men on the basis of birth sex, for x, y, z reason (legitimate aim).
However because x, y, z reason (legitimate aim) does not in fact apply to trans women

Because the reason x,y,z applies irrespective of the gender presentation of transwomen. It is because they are biological males.

I understand you feel sorry for transwomen but could you consider how women feel too please and the vast majority do not want any males in female single sex spaces, yes some are happy to share so they can go to mixed sex facilities to show welcoming to transwomen

Because the reason x,y,z applies irrespective of the gender presentation of transwomen

well no- it would depend what x, y, z reason was , in the given context. And the court acknowledged in several parts of the judgement , the significant impact that gender reassignment can have resulting in legal ramifications for applying rules related to the protected characteristic of “sex” in the EA 2010

It doesn't matter what x,y,z are if they are using sex as the justification for example x would be safety, y would be comfort and z dignity. If it is single sex it needs to be single sex first and foremost. As soon as you add in the opposite sex you are going against x,y and z. When sex matters it is sex that matters.

I have plenty in common with females but nothing in common with transwomen that I don't have with other men

No, Tandora, because there are no circumstances in which it is proportionate and legitimate to exclude most men but include trans women, because there is no actual difference between men and trans women from the point of view of most female users of that space.

Tandora tandora tandora.

It doesn't matter if there is a protected characteristic if there is a good reason for an article 8 exception.

Ignoring sex, has MANY good reasons why it would fall foul of the article 8 exceptions and we can demonstrate these in various ways.

Funny how the Equality Act exceptions are ignored and then the article 8 exceptions aren't talked about by transactivists who bang on about rights to privacy under article 8...

Why though? This is exactly what we are debating but you are just repeating it.

Why can’t one say:

ok I’m discriminating against men on the basis of birth sex, for x, y, z reason (legitimate aim).

However because x, y, z reason (legitimate aim) does not in fact apply to trans women , because (eg reasoning offered by court elsewhere as to impact of gender reassignment) , and because the impact on trans women (because a,b,c) would be much greater- for trans women this sex discrimination is a) not a legitimate aim and b) disproportionate , therefore unlawful, and also being not legitimate and disproportionate in its application to trans women because of their gender reassignment , indirectly discriminates against them due to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So therefore unlawful.

But WHY, but WHY, but WHHHYYY can't men be women? Good grief, you sound like a toddler.

Because X, Y, Z legitimate reason does apply to trans women the same way it applies to other men.

Because there is absolutely no evidence that trans women pose any less risk to women than other men do. (But there is quite a lot of evidence suggesting the opposite.)

Because there is no demonstrable impact on trans women of being excluded from female spaces, except that it doesn't affirm their private, personal identities, which isn't a valid reason.

Because even if there were a demonstrable impact, it wouldn't be relevant because they are male, the space isn't for them and so the impact of excluding them from it doesn't need to be taken into account.

Because the space is for female people and so the only relevant question is what impact it would have on those female people if male people were to be included, and whether the space would still serve its intended purpose as a single sex space from the point of view of those female people, which it wouldn't.

@Tandora, you really have to get your head around the fact that the Supreme Court judgment marks the end of absolutely-fucking-everything being considered through the lens of what male people (including trans women) want, and the beginning of the next wave of actual feminism, where society begins to reawaken to the fact that female people are actually human beings in our own right and do not exist merely to serve and validate male people.

@MyAmpleSheep have really appreciated this exchange.
x

Firstly the patience and knowledge displayed on this thread has blown me away.

Secondly, Tandora, males are not women. There is no circumstance, no situation and no comparison that will ever make males women.
Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Just read this and concluded:

• glad I didn't go into law. Doesn't suit my brain at all
• it was interesting that, despite knowing very little about this area, I found @Tandora 's posts really hard to follow, and the responses from many others very clear and compelling

Thanks all for the education!

🙄
there’s really no need for you to lower the tone.

For the sub-group of TW who “pass” would that not be discrimination against the TW who don’t pass? And how would it be policed? Would someone in authority have to judge their looks or would it be a case of the TW sneaking in to a female-only space and hoping no one objects?
What happens if they pass when they’re wearing make up and feminine clothes but not otherwise, or they pass in their 20s but not in their 50s?

Do you not think it’s easier to simply keep it sex-based?

I haven't lowered the tone. I asked you why you are struggling to understand that males are not women.

Where is the tone lowered in that question?

This:

Firstly the patience and knowledge displayed on this thread has blown me away.

There’s just no need for it. Anyone who doesn’t want to be on this thread is free to jog along, back to the GC echo chamber.

For the sub-group of TW who “pass” would that not be discrimination against the TW who don’t pass?

yes this was exactly part of the courts reasoning in general- it wasn’t just about the necessity of excluding all trans women for women, it was also about not discriminating between trans people with and without a GRC.

But surely the same logic/ concerns apply to the provision allowing exclusion of trans men from female spaces?

So complimenting posters on their knowledge and patience at explaining why males are excluded from female spaces is lowering the tone....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The members of this board have been patiently explaining the same facts for years and the fact they continue to do so is admirable and in my view deserves recognition.

I don't care if you think my compliment lowers the tone.