MNHQ, have you seen this new EHRC guidance?

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

Here

Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued new Guidance making it clear that ONLY Gender Reassignment is covered by the Equality Act.
Transtrenders, Furries, Non-binaries, etc are not covered.
So-called "misgendering" can only be regarded as at fault if the INTENTION was to harm. So if it is politics, etc, that makes you refer to someone's biological sex you are in the clear.

This might have implications for Mumsnet's policy on misgendering.

Really ! 💃🏽

Awesome

Wow

Interesting they are using the term transsexual.

"Objective Justification"

For which read, 'You can use the disabled toilet.'

😱👏

It's still a bit vague and non specific

To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it.

I mean anyone can say they are proposing to change their gender yet not ever do anything concrete about it whatsoever never mind have surgery or apply for a GRA.

They then go on to say

a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment

Which feeds back into you can just say you are proposing to change gender and access any service as a 'thinking about it' person.

On sports

competitive sports: a sports organisation restricts participation because of gender reassignment. For example, the organisers of a women’s triathlon event decide to exclude a trans woman. They think her strength gives her an unfair advantage. However, the organisers would need to be able to show this was the only way it could make the event fair for everyone

Does being able to show this include statements like 'well duh of course males are faster and stronger than females?'

Surely therefore this puts it squarely back in the arena of a medical condition that needs treatment.

Cross post ova, praps not then!

Good. I was hoping Mumsnet would change their policy on gendering. It seems fake and even offensive having to censor our language for the benefit of people who aren't on the board, and who we aren't trying to insult. There's a certain transwoman who is causing controversy in women's sport, but we can't directly name the cause of the problem... we can't say 'he'. By saying 'she' or even 'they' we're being coerced into appearing to accept this person's harmful reality.

I find some violent porn extremely upsetting, so I don’t watch it.
If men who chose to dress like women, don’t wish to be referred to as their biological sex, that is their wish but they shouldn’t be able to force everyone else to go along with their delusion.
The word transwoman exists for a reason, and transwomen are not women, is there actually a law that states not using a persons preferred pronouns is a crime? Or hate speech?

Interesting background - @2010Equality on Twitter have shared the emails, released under FOI, between Nic Williams, Fawcett Society and EHRC:

twitter.com/2010Equality/status/1101517064307728385

More background:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388551-Important-The-Equality-Act-guidance-has-just-changed

Oh bugger 🐻. I can’t be a teddy bear then?

The guidance is a ludicrous mess.

"The Equality Act says that you must not be discriminated against because:

of your gender reassignment as a transsexual. You may prefer the description transgender person or trans male or female. A wide range of people are included in the terms ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ but you are not protected as transgender unless you propose to change your gender or have done so. For example, a group of men on a stag do who put on fancy dress as women are turned away from a restaurant. They are not transsexual so not protected from discrimination"

It's a weird example, but how is the restaurant supposed to know whether or not a man in a dress has "proposed to change" his gender?

And this example is just plain offensive:
"a local health authority decides that it will not fund breast implants. As a result the health authority refuses to provide this treatment for a woman undergoing gender reassignment even though she considers it essential to make her look more feminine.The same policy is applied to all women but puts transsexuals at a greater disadvantage. The health authority may be able to justify its policy if it can prove that it has legitimate reasons"

Transsexuals are at a greater disadvantage how?
(And surely a woman undergoing gender reassignment is a transman??)

This seems to be weaker support for the EA excemptions for women only services than the reassurances given by various tory spokespeople.

If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment

Which implies only very occassionaly can single sex in the true sense be applied, whereas it was said to be at the discretion of the service provider.

I think they are just trying to make it look like they weren't wrong before rather than genuinely accepting women's rights.

I suspect this is just the start of the slippery slope to enshrine the practice of the law that exceptions should not be made.

I'm no expert but... I think the EHRC is pointing to an important distinction.

To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it. So anyone can say they are trans and they are protected.

BUT

In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation [providing single-sex services] to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment So even if the person has undergone the fullest possible gender reassignment (genital and facial surgery etc.), sensitive services are allowed to refuse them. Someone who is considering transitioning doesn't get a look-in.

This could be good news. I understand the first part to be about general discrimination, in everyday areas such as employment and housing and education. These organisations and their employees cannot refuse to employ/house/provide a service to someone (or sack or evict someone) just because they say they are trans, or are perceived to be trans. But a cervical smear clinic, or a lingerie shop, or a women's refuge, could. That's the right sort of anti-discrimination legislation, I think.

Please could anyone with better knowledge correct me.

I agree, using the term transsexual throughout seems to be a red herring upon reading it fully.

They use a term that is supposed to be reserved for people with the full shebang as far as transition goes but make it clear that absolutely no shebang is required therefore allowing anyone to demand anything based on personal feelings even going as far as just thinking about a change of gender.

Saying men cross dressing for a stag do don't count is meaningless because these guidelines still allow them to say they are proposing a gender change. How the hell is any person or establishment meant to know?

Sorry, was agreeing to stumbledin's post there just to be clear

Why would men on a stag do be refused entry to a restaurant?

Pencils
Only skimmed it through, but mind blown by the spin and dishonesty on show there.
Would love to know who wrote this:

"I was going to highlight that we would need to change the GRC definition following any new legislation, but I much prefer your suggestion. With regards a definition/caveat, how about the following: 'The Equality Act 2010 defines 'transsexual' as a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. We consider the term outdated and misleading. The preferred umbrella term is trans. However, the information contained within this guidance is based on current law and therefore uses the terms referred to in the Equality Act 2010"

I suppose because some bars or restaurants don't allow stag/hen parties I think because of general rowdiness.

I'm feeling very, very pessimistic reading those FOI docs Pencils linked.

Yes Doctoress it just smacks of paying lip service to women's concerns whilst forging full steam ahead regardless.

I'm never calling someone who is a man "she" or "her". I'll use the name they want to use, because anyone is free to call themselves anything at all. But I will not be coerced into pretending I believe something I cannot and will not.