Women's and Equality committee on equalities act

[Imnobody4]

Transcript of recent committee meeting is out.Below is link to Mumsnet original discussion updated with link to video of session with relevant bits concerning single sex provision bookmarked - page 5 data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/oral/92165.html

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3321779-Consultation-of-Equality-Act-enforcement-open-Womens-and-Equality-Committee

Ta

Good thread about this from FPFW:

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1058442108762230785

I disagree with Karon about self-ID having no impact, although, I do see why she says that and she makes a very good point about the lack of guidance being the real problem.

And actually, having read this all through, to my mind self-ID will just lower the threshold for when it's reasonable to use the Equality Act 2010 exemptions for a strictly single-sex space. Which could be a good thing.

For example, when a GRC needed a Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, and most had had surgery, then it might not have been proportionate to exclude a transwoman from, eg, a female changing room, (but a rape crisis centre would be OK).

However, if GRCs are done on self-ID basis with most holders having no medical treatment, then it becomes necessary and proportionate to exclude transwomen from changing rooms too (as more women will feel frightened or uncomfortable being in a changing room with someone who they perceive to be a man, whereas they may not have if it was a dysphoric post-surgery transwoman).

But a really interesting and insightful read. It gives me hope that any changes in the GRA will be alongside much more promotion of, and comfort using, EA exemptions.

Much of that seemed sensible. Clear guidance and agreement on exemptions for single sex spaces, and provision of additional services to meet everyone's needs, for example a separate transwomen sexual violence service. (Won't go down well with TRA lobby but the most logical, practical solution that balances all needs.)

Where they haven't clicked yet from that transcript is that for transsexual people with gender dysphoria, the original people the GRA certificate was created for with its accompanying legal rights, self ID presents a different issue in that they do not want to share spaces and services with the AGP blokes and escalating cross dressers under the massive trans umbrella any more than women do. Should a bloke who likes to wear a wig and dress once or twice a week as he feels like it be entitled to the same sex based protections as someone who lives in a feminine gender 24/7 and has had hormones/surgery? (As opposed to protection from discrimination for making whatever personal appearance choices he feels like?) Even more fundamentally, can that bloke have access to sex based protections as a woman without making a nonsense of them for women? Someone is going to have to have the guts to draw some lines, however difficult it may be.

I am very worried about the way this line of questioning is going.

From where I'm sitting, self- i/d is on the cards and the only sop to women's concerns will be guidance to refuges etc about the criteria for excluding trans men (and I don't mean women). For me and mine, this is totally unacceptable. Men can't be women full-stop.

The panel is constantly reassured that the reforms to the GRA are sound - so long as there is a bit of tidying up with some guidance from the Equalities Minister aimed at niche women's services.

No-oooooooooooooooooooo!

Yes I'm slightly reassured that they are at least acknowledging a clash, but they're going to do the very minimum and not address provision of services generally e.g. changing rooms, toilets, guides etc they'll say that's a decision for the organisation not a right for women to have. Think there's still a long way to go.

It also does not take into account the vigorous, aggressive bullying lobbying the TRA groups use, such as inundating refuge emails, telephone lines etc with an onslaught, to force them to change their policy from single sex to trans inclusive. At the moment that's still a 'don't mention the war' kind of aspect to it. Everyone knows it happens, everyone knows it's wrong, no one yet has quite got the guts to say it.

I do like however that they're clear about consulting the voice of the service users, which is a point made here many times. Mostly because service users are free to say what service providers have their hands tied from saying.

Video clips relevant to sex, gender reassignment and single sex exceptions:

9 minutes near the start

6 minutes near the end

It's worth remembering this is not the GRA consultation it's enforcement of the EA and the role of EHRC. Also this is the first oral evidence session so more can be expected.

There's a twitter poll here on whether a GRC makes a legal difference when using a single sex exception. It appears there is no consensus, even among legal people - Karon Monaghan, who gave evidence in this session says it makes no difference, Julian Norman says it does make a difference.

Obviously the GRA should not be changed while there is so much disagreement over the effects it would have.

I thought this was interesting from Karon:

It may be that the legislation itself should carve out exemptions for refuges or for rape crisis centres; it would have to be defined more broadly. But for certain safe spaces, so that people know and we don’t have to go through this exercise of proportionality and we don’t have to identify precisely what the issues are in every individual case, we can say, “We have a blanket policy and that is because there is an exemption.”

Even if Parliament hasn’t got the time at the moment to change the exemptions, at the very least there should be very clear guidance, so that people feel confident saying, “I’m sorry, but with this service—”.

At the moment, the Statutory Code says you can't have a blanket policy. Or you can, but you still have to apply it 'case-by-case' (so you can't really). Statutory code is not the law itself but carries a lot of legal weight. If an organisation decided to go against the code they would have to have a very good justification if it went to court.

From EHRC's post consultation report on the code, it is clear this was added in response to trans lobbying groups. GIRES, Press for Change and a:gender (trans civil servants organisation) are all mentioned in the list of respondents.

It would be good if one outcome of this inquiry was to get rid of 'case-by-case' so the exceptions can be applied to specific services, rather than specific TW.

Yes, I think blanket exemptions should be able to be used more. That would be a positive step.

But the TRAs won't have it. Let's not forget they were outraged that a woman would want a smear test done by an actual female.

It would be good if one outcome of this inquiry was to get rid of 'case-by-case' so the exceptions can be applied to specific services, rather than specific TW.

Agree. I'm not sure what the exceptions in the Act are for if they can only be applied on a case by case basis.

Meanwhile it seems to be possible to exclude pretty much anyone from anything on the basis of religious belief and the people being excluded are often women.

Yes and other male people don't have to be "case by case" to be excluded from single sex services and facilities.

Just dropping this in (@ are removed):

CEO of LGBTfdn PaulMartin101 who reported fairplaywomen to the police & supports serial harraser of women Harrop has joined the WomenEqualities LGBT advisory board. Very worrying #misogynistic men are being invited to take spaces advising on equality.

twitter.com/FeministRoar/status/1059033259345149952

I assume Martin's appointment is one of these from the voluntary sector:

An additional 3 members will be directly appointed from Stonewall, the LGBT Foundation and the LGBT Consortium, so as to represent the breadth of the LGBT voluntary sector.

However, there is an advert for additional candidates and I'd like to see the likes of Prof. Kathleen Stock apply for that:

The Minister for Women and Equalities is appointing a LGBT Advisory Panel to advise the Government on its policies concerning LGBT+ people.

The Panel will act as a sounding board, providing practical advice to the Minister on policy decisions and publications, collecting and presenting evidence on the experiences of LGBT+ people and acting as a link between Government and civil society.

www.gov.uk/government/news/lgbt-advisory-panel-recruitment

Philip Davies is still on the women and equalities committee and will be working hard to get anything changed that he can to make life harder for women.

He's an active MRA and makes no secret of this.