Government Announcement

[crunchymint]

The Government has announced that it has “no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single-sex spaces”.

Well no, but if transwomen are women then they are entitled to use single sex spaces.

There is guidance in the act that allows single sex spaces to only be for women in certain circumstances. This legislation is not being utilised.

Not if there is a proportionate need to restrict the space to women only. Those with GRCs that state their legal gender is female can be excluded under those circumstances.

This legislation is not being utilised.

Thats the problem right there. There is protection for women but if the organisations don't implement it then it's not worth the paper it's written on.

But if transwomen are women then who decides who gets in?

Not if there is a proportionate need to restrict the space to women only. Those with GRCs that state their legal gender is female can be excluded under those circumstances.

There is no case law to support that claim.

Weirdly, organisations seem unkeen to use this legislation to safeguard single sex spaces. So I'm not surprised that there are no examples of this law being used in this way. I can only imagine the shitstorm that would rain down on any organisation that dared to try to insist on single sex spaces.

According to the guidance in the act, it depends on whether someone has their penis or not and "passes", when you are talking about vulnerable groups such as a support group for rape victims. But yes, there needs to be more case law.

Surely passing is completely subjective?

The problem is that establishments are already too ignorant or scared of the backlash/chasing progressive credits to invoke the exemptions under the Equalities Act. So once Self-ID comes in, it doesn't matter that the EA single-sex exemptions remain.

Yes it is Jorah.

Good, but Stonewall's "vision for change" document www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stw-vision-for-change-2017.pdf is their 2017 to 2022 plan, which means they're going to continue to lobby whoever is in power.

Passing should be irrelevant.
Sex-segregation is not about what you look like. Looks do not determine whether any given person is a threat to a vulnerable group. In fact, it makes the vulnerable group even more vulnerable if you conceal an important fact in order to access these areas.

Even posting it on a women's rights forum gets someone popping up with legal warnings FGS. Vancouver Rape Crisis had a court action against them trying to do that and had to spend 100,000 in legal costs. How are organisations supposed to apply that in practice?

I wish an organisation that meets the guidance in the act would enact it and be taken to court. The organisation would win. We need organisations to see that legally they can have single sex spaces in some circumstances.
And religious organisations are totally exempt.

Not if there is a proportionate need to restrict the space to women only. Those with GRCs that state their legal gender is female can be excluded under those circumstances.
There is no case law to support that claim.

It's in the legislation. It is effective law whether there is case law or not.

The real problem, as pp have identified, is that if a business creates a single sex service which is not open to transpeople, then transpeople can threaten to sue arguing that it is not proportionate for it to be single sex, and most businesses will cave. Women do not have the same leverage where they think that a single sex service should be provided.

And religious organisations are totally exempt.

Is this true? Why does the protected characteristic of religion trump how someone feels but not the protected characteristic of sex?

Women do not have the same leverage where they think that a single sex service should be provided

Nor anything like the level of funding for legal challenges from donations by rich billionaires.

No need for case law. It is in the statute.

Sex is biological DNA. Most people will and have always respected that fact.

If you 'pass' then you may be satisfying your own needs by not repsecting boundaries, but at the expense of deceiving others or by taking their silence as consent. That woudn't wash with sex or any other transaction.

Religious organisations are exempt from equality legislation because otherwise they would have to make changes to their religious practices.

The guidance in the Gender Identity Act actually gives a lot of get out clauses. Even though they are not used.

We need a brave barrister to step up and offer their services for a reduced rate to women's causes.

But I do think though that it could be challenged by self-representation by any reasonably competant and logical (and brave) person. The law is actually very straight forward. It is all the other stuff that is intimidating, and intentionally so.

I know a couple of lawyers who would represent organisations challenged. One has clearly said that she thinks we would win as the act does give a lot of leeway.

And there are some organisations that only offer sex based services. Obviously not going to name them here, but they exist and would fight any challenge.

The law is becoming increasingly irrelevant as more and more organisations declare that they will treat people based on self-id. In the end it won't matter that an organization has the legal right to offer single-sex spaces and services, if they are publicly vilified for doing so.

Ally McBeagle

I think that there are grounds to sue if exemptions not invoked.

Not invoking exemptions is a PCP which disproportionately negatively affects women. Only defence is objective justification; proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aims. We argue that removing dignity, privacy and safeguarding for women is not proportionate.

M&S would be a handy target or the YHA

Could easily be a multi party claim too which would give good leverage