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.

No because transwomen are excluded due to sex and transmen (it's a very very high bar) are excluded to gender reassignment

There's no need for our patience and knowledge on your thread?

But we're the ones in the echo chamber?

Aye, right.

I’m really not interested in this thread turning into the usual (person directed aggressions and barbed insults) .

I’ve had a really helpful substantive exchange with a couple of pps . If you would like to contribute to that please do. But there’s really no need to wade in with moralising commentary about the personal qualities of various posters.

Despite the fist shaking at the dying of the light...

Try better arguments that aren't legally illiterate nonsense designed to scam trans activists and their allies then.

The problem is the arguments the good law project are saying are compelling just aren't. Indeed they don't even follow basic law protocols in many cases.

You are being scammed. And trying to suck others into being scammed.

Therefore I don't think people trying to stop you from losing your money and getting your hopes up over legal nonsense need to worry about 'lowering the tone'.

Did I miss the declaration that you own this thread and can dictate who posts and the content? That's very controlling behaviour Tandora.

While my posts lacks the patience & knowledge of others it does contain a valid question so maybe if you answered it and stop trying to control how I ask it the exchanges can continue.

No, I don’t think so, because they do not have the protected characteristic of female sex. Being excluded from a female only space is not discrimination against men if there is a legitimate reason for that space to exist. They could only be discriminated against on the grounds of perception under the pc of sex if people discriminated against them because they mistakenly thought they were women.

This is separate to my analysis that people are over- interpreting the judgement itself , to presume it mandates the exclusion of trans women from all women’s services.

If someone is delivering a Women's Services, then including men whatever they say they are, makes it automatically no longer a Women's service. That's the point.

Or perhaps with this post you are trying to control how I respond to your rude and pointless posts? I can’t dictate- I have no power over who posts what- but I can certainly express my opinion on your behaviour and the type of exchange I’m interested in having.

If you care to offer a substantive contribution we can continue a productive conversation , otherwise I shall leave you to whistle into the wind.

The only way to keep males out is to have a single sex service… but the structure of the EA doesn’t permit you to operate a nearly-single sex service

I see what you mean , it’s the language of “single sex service” , so it’s not that you can exclude men from services on the basis of sex , it’s that the act specifically only allows this in the context of the provision of “a single sex service” which has now been clarified to mean “birth sex”. What a mess.

@MyAmpleSheep im still interested in what you said about signage and services/ discrimination- can I not advertise a group for say black and ethnic minority women?

So you’ve finally grasped what the ruling was about? Great.

My first post wasn't rude and I responded to your controlling behaviour if you don't like that then don't do it to others.

I have asked a valid question so I am unable to contribute further until you answer it or declare that you refuse to answer it.

Why is it a mess? What is actually wrong with female people having some penis free spaces in a society largely built by and for the benefit of penis people?

Because it makes some penis people sad.

Yes, OK.

It's OK for them to be sad.

They need to sit with that sadness and realise the important life lesson that not everything is about them and other people’s lives do not revolve around them.

No because that centres the feelings of the male people who will always be male and ignores the needs to the female people that the sex based exemptions are meant to protect.

It is really very simple, it is proportionate and legitimate to retain single sex spaces to protect female people.

non-trans men could be excluded from a service on the “biological sex” exemption , even though the service was including some “birth males” - trans women - without necessarily unlawfully discriminating against (non trans) men.

So, a couple of points here:

The suggestion of excluding a particularly trans man, which I agree has lead to unhelpful misreadings, was not that the trans man would thereby be included in male provisions, but that they may reasonably be asked to use unisex provisions should they exist.

Key points here being that (1) the exception is an allowed exclusion from natal sex provisions not an inclusion in opposite sex provisions (2) is dependant on the availability of additional unisex provisions, and (3) the exclusion is to achieve the legimate aim of the single sex provision, in this case providing a space where women feel safe from men.

Emphasing here: the justification of the exclusion is the same as the legitimate aim that justifies the space: the collective needs of the other women in the space not the individual need of the trans man.

So the equivalent scenario for a trans woman is not that he is included in the women's provisions as a better fit for his own needs (which after all is likely to undermine the legitimate purpose for other women not to mention losing the sex based exemption) , it would be that he were excluded from the male provisions in favour of unisex because his presence was upsetting to other men.

And just as for the trans man, if there were no unisex provision, he would remain with the facilities of his sex.

You are also right that the other concern might be that a provider, in allowing trans women in a facility, wasn’t providing appropriate single sex facilities - but the contexts where this is required are limited (eg schools, workplaces)

I think you have also misunderstood this. Regardless of where single sex facilities are mandated, any situation that only provides mixed sex provisions could be at risk of indirectly discriminating against one sex if it could be shown that having only mixed sex provisions disadvantages one sex over the other.

I think it’s calling men ‘non trans men’ rather than just men that often makes it harder to follow.

That's the question they never answer isn't it? A million reasons why trans women want what they want but never a reason why female people shouldn't have single sex protections, language, opportunities or even a voice to explain why we need them.

@Tandora can you explain why it's so important to you that female people, who undeniably exist and undeniably face specific risks and challenges because of their sex, should not have legal rights and protections that are specific to their sex?

Actually while you are at it, can you explain why a man's belief he is a woman should override a woman's knowledge that he is not to the degree that his hands touching her can be mandated by law to be perceived by her as a woman's hands, his eyes on her as a woman's eyes, his opinions on her life and needs as a woman's perspective?

Because these seem to be fundamental assumptions on which the demands to give trans identifying men cross sex rights rest and yet they are never explicitly justified.

It really isn’t ’a mess’.

It was a mess before, when something calling itself a women’s only service or a lesbian association could be full of trans identifying men.

The whole point of the ruling was to clear up the mess - which it has, and which the EHRC interim guidance puts into clear language.

Service providers don’t have to make something single sex, but if they call it single sex (and it’s a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim) then it has to be based on birth sex.

Is a community group for BAME women permitted? Associations (with membership rules and more than 25 members and some other conditions) are covered under schedule 16. Is your community group a drop-in (service) or does it have a membership list where entry is restricted to those on the list?

A BAME-only drop-in would be a service unlawfully discriminating on racial grounds.

Single characteristic associations are legal, as long as the characterstic isn’t colour (schedule 16 paragraph 4) so an association for black people is unlawful. You can also have association for people who share (all of) a set of characteristics: a Nigerian women’s club is legal. in your case I think you’d have a problem with the “black” part of BAME.

For everyone or only for protected groups you mean

Outside of the protected characteristics discrimination is lawful. You can have an association for tennis players only, or restrict entry to your night club to left handed people only, if you want.

So if indirect discrimination is unlawful unless a proportionate means to a legitimate aim that must mean discrimination on a protected ground. Discrimination on any other ground is lawful for any purpose, or for no purpose at all.

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

I keep repeating it because it’s the answer to the question you keep repeating. I don’t think it’s possible to explain more clearly than I (and to be fair lots of other people) already have. If you’re in good faith, keep analyzing the answer until you have that lightbulb moment and it clicks why what I wrote answers your question.

I think you’ve got it.

There are single sex services, services provided separately to each sex, and services provided differently to each sex, and there are slightly different rules for when each is legal. But in all cases there has to be a really good reason why the sexes are treated differently, that something inherent in the nature of the service requires it, for it to be legal.

For example, you couldn’t lawfully have a single-sex dog walking service that only walks the dogs of male customers. It makes no difference to the nature of the service provided as to whether a man or woman owns the dog.

but where something about the nature of the service itself is much improved or made possible only by being provided to men only, or women only (or differently, or separately) that becomes lawful. However you must have clearly in mind why the service needs to be single sex - you have to know the reason.

here’s the kicker: If you let someone of the opposite sex because it won’t change/spoil/prevent the service to do so, you’ve demonstrated that the service doesn’t need to be single sex. At which point you’ve shown by your own action that your claimed justification in law for offering a single sex service is bogus, and if it’s for a bogus reason it’s not lawful.

Not trying to detail, but reflecting on this - I wonder how clubs like the Garrick fit in to all of this?