Judith Green 20 min talk at Newcastle - WPUK’s 5 simple demands

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

. They are so-o-o- reasonable and shocking that women have to be demanding these in 2018.

Also, a clear summary of the single-sex exemptions for women in the Equality Act and why many of them have become, or are becoming, unworkable.

A very clear and concise overview and a good "executive summary" for anyone wanting to come up to speed on the main issues.

Just a reminder of the demands:

1. Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.

1. The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

1. A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act which allow or single-sex services or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job (such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

1. Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

1. Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

The Legal Position

“Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, providing it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim”.

Proportionate: It must be reasonable - in proportion, and of an appropriate size, extent, amount, or degree

Legitimate: It must be a legal aim i.e. not a spurious or false grievance.

In other words

• those who are managing single sex spaces may refuse access to a trans person, so long as the response is reasonable and based in real facts and circumstances, and lawful. But that is a very high barrier to reach.

Section 9. Subsection (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

Subsection (2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).

Conclusion

What Ministers are doing is using fudge words (as indeed they are used in the directive and in the Equality Act 2010), because no one really wants to say ‘No’ to either side

Thanks for posting OP really interesting and makes it clear!

Foxy I'm not a lawyer so can't critique your assessment however it makes sense to me. Thus that would form the justification for the 5 demands presumably.

My summary of those is: an impact statement must be carried out before any legislative changes and women consulted in the process - as we have seen revolutionary stuff apparently to ask women for their opinions /s

Plus wld the govt review what's happening in practice re single sex exemptions plus the collection of data. In other words a current state assessment - that should have been carried out as part of the impact assessment that wasn't.

You're very welcome love

It brought home to me again how shockingly all of this had been handled - really there needs to be an inquiry into the gross mismanagement of this process that has put women and children in harms way.

Oh and can't the process be conducted respectfully (might go flesh out what that means behaviour wise for PM as her dept had show they have consistently disrespected women).

And can we base any proposals on evidence ( and presumably hurt feelings of a minority at the expense of actual serious injuries to a vastly underrepresented majority shouldn't be a reasonable outcome) - but again best be a bit more explicit for those who don't seem to be able to take the latter into account at all.