Major (positive) change to EA/trans advice

[Oldstyle]

It appears that there's been a change in the official advice given to organisations about how to resolve single-sex vs transwomen inclusion issues. In favour of women's rights to single sex provision. Needs to be shouted about / shared. And failures in compliance need to be challenged.
twitter.com/2010equality/status/1079039059211759623?s=21&fbclid=IwAR0VdGYXiBe_7fw4dJuPQyHBI5gZY4x2WdWdP3nE2PG_ZOH5plyTLuS-x90

They have no intention of doing so. Didn't they open the GRA consultation by saying TWAW?

Why are you acting like everything is hunky dory? But still acting all GC?
I find your stance contradictory JackyH.

You seem to believe we can rely on the government for this, yet MPs -one or two excepted - are too scared and say TWAdefoW

Hi - - it's my twitter thread (screenshot of notification view attached as secret handshake). I'm a regular here under a different name.

Its not an official account but my aim is to link to official and expert sources to clarify the EA2010, which is often misunderstood... And to highlight how inconsistent (and for so long wrong) the EHRC guidance has been.

You are right (whoever said it), the thread agrees with and repeats what Rosa Freedman and Julian Norman have already pointed out.

The"new" thing is the EHRC statement from July 30 www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language which didn't get much attention at the time (and wasnt promoted at all). It's a major about-face and shows the previous guidance was wrong (I think).

Not only does it confirm Rosa and Julia's point about sex and "gender reassignment" being treated as separate and show that "transwomen are (generally) men" is a statement of the law.... The wording is a big shift in the EHRC guidance from saying any transwomen can only be excluded from women's spaces on a case by case basis (which means practically impossible) to transwomen without a GRC are automatically excluded (and its nothing to do w them being trans it's because they are men), and transwomen who've changed their birth certificate via GRC can be excluded (often on a case by case basis).

In practice I think if there is a legitimate aim to keep penises out of women's intimate spaces, but you can't ask if someone has a penis, then that rules out case by case assessment so orgs should be able to adopt generalised approaches "women's changing room for adult human females"
and have third spaces for people who don't want to go in to single sex spaces for their sex.

The EHRC has given its opinion. Julian Norman and Rosa Freedman have both given an opinion.

Case law is sparse and not always relevant. A judge may interpret the law differently.

The EHRC interpets the law to say that there can be exclusions - but only in exceptional cases. They recommend looking at each case on its merits and individual circumstances - but where is the source of that opinion? Are they right? Or is it another interpretation?

Basically, women need the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act, because it facilitates male delusions to the detriment of women's reality.

We women also need a simultaneous strengthening of sex-based divisions, where it comes to women's single-sex spaces. Female bodies only, female born. No men. No male bodies.

Men and women should be free to identify and dress and present however they wish.

But women are women. Men are not women. And women can see you men, and hear you, and smell you.

What Bubonic said

Thanks for the thread Feministme. I realise there are a ton of ifs/buts/maybes/howevers but it did cheer me up to discover that the EHRC was attempting to follow the original principle of the law rather than just rolling over and waiting for the TRAs to tickle its tummy. What can we do to extend this clarity do you think?

This is most important then in the context of schools and organisations for children because children cannot have a GRC. Is that right? Does it then follow that organisations who don't provide/enforce sex-specific spaces are in breach of the EA? For example, say there's a group of girls uncomfortable with a male changing in their spaces. They complain and are offered an alternative space. Would this give them the right to recourse under the EA?

*Laundry" Schools also have this law:

See Regulation 4:: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/regulation/4/made

gcscience Please be assured that there is no way I am leaving anything to the government and do not believe everything is "hunky dory".

Placemarking

This is most important then in the context of schools and organisations for children because children cannot have a GRC.

I've always thought this.

Welcoming any clarity on this and the principle sounds great. IANAL but if we female toilet users (or the single-sex service provider or employer organising the single-sex staff toilets or whoever it is) can't legally ask to see a GR certificate.. then how does this principle translate into moving us forward in real life where male born people who ID as women can use the Ladies unchallengeably- because nobody knows who has a GRC and who doesn’t ?

Not trying to be a wanker about this- I really want to see the law made foolproof to interpret around this. Would it not be better to campaign for GRA repeal now the problems it was brought in to solve have been solved?

We did discuss most of this when the new guidance originally came out. Yes, there were some corrections to the most egregious misinterpretations of EqA by EHRC. But loads still remain.

In particular, the case by case insertion to exemptions for GRC holders that was lobbied for by trans groups. Case by case should be clarified to mean service provider by service provider and not trans person by trans person. That clarification would actually make a meaningful difference to third sector women's orgs such as refuges and small businesses (to stop the #waxmyballs stuff currently going on in Canada).

While I accept that this is EHRC opinion and not case law, it is useful opinion compared with the Stonewall version that has already become an established narrative in too many schools and organisations.

I’m also pondering how it could apply to the MN talk guidelines. I don’t agree with the TRAs control of the language of this debate.

In practice I think if there is a legitimate aim to keep penises out of women's intimate spaces, but you can't ask if someone has a penis, then that rules out case by case assessment so orgs should be able to adopt generalised approaches

This. This needs clear, unequivocal clarification by EHRC.

So my takeaway from this is that the GRC is pretty critical in terms of how people should be treated. If it allows someone to legally change sex then the the bar for evidencing this should be pretty high to effectively protect the sex based rights of girls and women. Therefore the current system works (sort of) but the proposal of self ID would be a disaster.

In practice though as it’s pretty hard to tell who’s got a GRC in most everyday situations organisation are likely to take people’s word for what sex they are anyway... A trans woman in possession of a GRC isn’t going to take her birth certificate with her every time she goes swimming.

Maybe transmen are a little more modest and less demanding, as they are biologically women. And with a beard, they pas quite well. The trans women (the extremists, not the majority) appear to be much more forward in their claims as they are mentally still very aggressive and demanding men.

What do you think?

Lang
My interpretation (for what it is worth) is that in referring to 'case by case', 'case' relates to the context and/or service not an individual.

For example, an organisation that runs leisure centres, rather than making a blanket decision about trans people being able to chose which changing facilities they change in, they should consider the facilities in each context. For example, they may chose to apply an exemption where there are open changing areas in a leisure centre but not in a centre where there are only floor to ceiling cubicles (I know that this is still unsatisfactory to many- I'm using it to highlight my point).

I can't see how it can refer to individuals because it would be illegal to ask to see GRCs and very undignified and intrusive to ask trans people about their bodies.

I think where it is appropriate to provide single sex provision/services they could simply make it clear that changing facilities are sex segregated by natal sex and to provide some mixed sex. Like in many aspects of life, people are required to follow the law (only drink in pubs once a certain age, drive having passed a test etc).

I know that some TRAs ridicule notions of 'policing' single sex provision. It would be the same as age restricted provision or driving licences, if suspicion is aroused, checks could be run and consequences faced if someone is not following the rules.

Neurotrash

My interpretation (for what it is worth) is that in referring to 'case by case', 'case' relates to the context and/or service not an individual.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? But not so, I'm afraid. Case by case was an inclusion lobbied for by trans groups and, subsequent to inclusion, used by them to go about saying it meant person by person not service by service. This is the guidance that completely fucked the women's sector in particular. That's why I say it needs unequivocal clarification by EHRC. A beauty salon offering intimate services needs to be able to be clear that is single sex only. A women's refuge needs to be able to be clear that is single sex only.

A beauty salon offering intimate services needs to be able to be clear that is single sex only. A women's refuge needs to be able to be clear that is single sex only.

Absolutely. Otherwise inclusion, or exclusion will always, and for ever, be the beginning of a negotiation. And one that will be absolutely fraught with pitfalls for the service provider.

Threads that here that run to 1000 posts with people arguing for inclusion is exactly what a case-by-case basis means.

No really is a complete answer in this respect.

#repeal the GRA.

"No justification is required to exclude trans persons not holding a GRC from single-sex services beyond them not being (as a matter of law) the sex for whom the service is dedicated. But separate justification is required for excluding GRC holders, because their GRC alters their legal sex. Thus, relaxing the conditions for obtaining a GRC necessarily affects who can access single-sex services. The more accessible GRC certificate are, the more access transsexual people will have to single-sex services. This is an important point which ought to be understood in the debate about reform." ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/uk-reform-of-gender-recognition-and-the-commission-for-equality-and-human-rights/

Reading about the individual who is suing women for not waxing his balls, and now apparently also suing kiwi farms, makes for fairly interesting reading.

The individual seems to have had far-reaching influence in terms of erasing all trace of their activities.

But, apparently, it's not because of who they know, but rather because of who wants to shut them up. Who wants to minimise the effect that this individual is having.

This individual blows the trans ideology wide open.

Coupled with Twitter's share price going down, on the basis of a report claiming they are misogynistic, could this really be the turning point? Because giving men the rights to women's spaces, through filling out a form, is directly responsible for this person's behaviour. And an awful lot of very influential people are desperately trying to cover that up.

Link below.

www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/aahm5a/how_the_jy_dumpster_fire_has_big_tech_scrambling/