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

It's interesting timing, JY, Twitter, now the Game store nutter, I've noticed MNHQ have been quite lenient in allowing this person to be correctly-sexed with 2 threads still running, over 50K shares of just the DM video, not to mention all the versions, The Monitors can't keep up with all the correct-sexing right now.

Maybe this will be tipping point. When they literally can't keep up with the volume of correct-sexing so can't work to stop it.

I think the confusion comes from what the baseline groups are. It should be clearer that TW should not be discriminated against compared to men, by having a gender identity. Plenty of people think it means they shouldn't be discriminated against compared to women.

I think this is where talking in circles happens.

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?

This is important because in the Mermaids jelly brain recording, the trainer, Jan, specifically cites 'the law' "the EA." (I need to read the transcript for her precise word salad).

She states that if a child merely tells another person they want to "change gender" (her words, to paraphrase) then that's enough to cover them under the EA! Not only is she using the EA to cover children, but she is pretending that anyone who simply muses about becoming the opp. sex is a protected characteristic.

This is what Mermaids et all tell schools!

Great point lets splash much clearer when this is pointed out. This clarity is what #TWAW and #nodebate seeks to deny/obscure/refuse to allow.

It's interesting that they have clarified what we thought they meant in the first place.

I still maintain some if this mess is thanks to the confusion over the words sex and gender.

Or was it deliberate. Either way, it went unnoticed till too late.

EHRC need to amend the statutory code so that it's in line with their clarified position.

Statutory code does not have the same status as other legal opinion. While not being the law in itself, it carries a lot of legal weight. If you ended up in court in a discrimination case you would need to show a very good reason for not following the statutory code.

Here's what it says in Services, Public functions and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice:

------
13.57
If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate.

13.58
The intention is to ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs. Service providers need to be aware that transsexual people may need access to services relating to their birth sex which are otherwise provided only to people of that sex. For example, a transsexual man may need access to breast screening or gynaecological services. In order to protect the privacy of all users, it is recommended that the service provider should discuss with any transsexual service users the best way to enable them to have access to the service.

13.59
Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.

13.60
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances. Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice. Also, the provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available.

-------

EHRC consulted when drawing up the codes of practice (see pics for relevant bits of the post consultation report). Press for Change and GIRES both participated in the consultation, as did an organisation called a:gender - 'a network that embraces transsexual, transgender and intersex staff from across the whole Civil Service.'

I don't know if they're still active, their website doesn't give much away, but from their info sheet:

Members

This includes, but is not limited to, anyone who is or identifies as Trans, Transgender, Transsexual, Non-Binary, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Gender Variant, Cross-dresser, Genderless, Third gender or Bigender, and anyone who is Intersex. You do not have to be ‘out’ in the workplace to become a member. We maintain absolute discretion when contacting members

also ...

We liaise and attend internal meetings with Civil Service departments and external meetings on behalf of the Civil Service, such as with providers of support for Trans and Intersex people (e.g. GIRES, Stonewall, Mermaids).

Surely, there needs to be an enquiry into why the EHRC got it wrong?

Just a point. None of this has the remotest application to #waxmyballs. Canada isn’t in the UK or Europe. No laws passed in the UK or the EU have the slightest bearing on that case. Canada has to sort this mess out itself.

We liaise and attend internal meetings with Civil Service departments and external meetings on behalf of the Civil Service, such as with providers of support for Trans and Intersex people (e.g. GIRES, Stonewall, Mermaids).

How come they get to attend these meetings? Are women also represented?

such as with providers of support for Trans and Intersex people (e.g. GIRES, Stonewall, Mermaids)

I find it extraordinary and outrageous that a public body should provide guidance on the law to favour the trans lobby. In doing so, they misled organisations (like the police, councils, NSPCC and Guides) and self i/d was introduced by stealth.

It was only under pressure from Women's Groups concerned about safeguarding, that the law was 'reinterpreted' quietly. There was no apology. I am left with the feeling that the EHRC had been biased and untrustworthy. It has a lot to answer for - particularly the wide-spread abuse of access to single-sex spaces via self i/d.

A half-decent EHRC would try to undo the damage wrought.

I mentioned this scandal to my MP back in Sept/October and he nearly fell off his chair. 'Are you quite sure about that? They changed the guidance only after being pressed on their interpretation? Are you sure?'

'Yes, I'm sure,' I said 'and I think that something is rotten at the heart of government and Whitehall'. He slumped back in his chair with a 'WTF' look on his face.

Surely, there needs to be an enquiry into why the EHRC got it wrong?

A fair few of us have pointed out the problems as part of this inquiry - Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the EHRC. The first evidence session had a big focus on the sex/gender confusion and potential effects of changing the GRA.

So we can only hope it gets picked up and looked into properly.

For me, it's clear what the EA 2010 intended, which is to allow single-sex spaces (which may have occasionally been legal sex, but definitely intended to also allow bio sex when needed).

My issue is the fact it is completely unworkable because the GRC is sealed and nobody is allowed to request to see it. So there is absolutely no way to ever determine whether a "woman" is a GRC-holder.

Personally, I think the GRA should be repealed, and the protection afforded by the "Gender Reassignment" Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act should be used instead, with the group they are compared to to assess discrimination being their bio sex.

If self-ID becomes law, then, in my view, the occasions where it is appropriate/proportionate to exclude transwomen increase. Because if it's necessary to exclude men, then it's necessary to exclude anyone who any female stranger is likely to perceive as a male (and there aren't any circumstances where that wouldn't be appropriate, in my opinion).

it's clear what the EA 2010 intended, which is to allow single-sex spaces

Yes to that observation.

We were told that GRCs were mere 'administration' to help transexuals negotiate their way through officialdom. It was a legal fiction.

Did Parliament intend that the fiction would become a truthful fact? Did it intend that men could change their sex on production of a piece of paper and become eligible for women's sporting competitions etc?

You see, I still don't believe that the EHRC interprets the law correctly. I think they've got it wrong.

I don't see why service providers have to decide, case-by-case, whether there are grounds to exclude a man with a GRC from women's spaces. For me, it is self-evident that a man has to be excluded because he is of the male sex.

*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.*

^ THIS!

I think the significant thing about the EHRC statement is they have rowed back from saying case by case decision is needed for any transwoman to be excluded from a woman's space/service, to saying case by case is will 'often' be needed if they have a GRC (which implies sometimes a clear upfront policy would be fine).

In fact in most cases it seems like making a policy based on the overall context/service is more realistic than expecting frontline staff to make a case by case assessment of whether someone is "visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender".

I think the EHRC must review all their guidance.

It is completely incoherent to say (as they do) "Generally, a business which is providing separate services or single-sex services should
treat a transsexual person according to the sex in which the transsexual person presents " and at the same time say "A trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions".