@Mbwashenzi has the FOVAS "Response to Stonewall" been sent to Maria Miller MP, Jess Phillips MP and Baroness Burt of Solihull?
They, jointly with Ruth Hunt CEO Stonewall, seem to have received and in the Foreword strongly endorse the Stonewall & NFPSYNERGY Report "Supporting trans women in domestic and sexual violence services: Interviews with professionals in the sector"
(Why do people never date important documents like this?! - I mean the Stonewall Report.)
--------
THE "CASE-BY-CASE" CLARIFICATION WAS OBTAINED BY "WOMEN AND GIRLS IN SCOTLAND"
twitter.com/WG_Scotland/status/1133870458686906368
"The GEO (told us) that preclusion of trans people on a ‘case by case basis’ refers to the specific set of circumstances under which they are precluded...not to individuals". Blanket policies regarding female-only provision are lawful, so long as they are objectively justified."
GEO = UK Government Equality Office
Female Only Provision: A Women and Girls in Scotland Equality Report
secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.99/hjn.a49.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FEMALE-ONLY-PROVISION-REPORT-1.pdf
PAGE 37
The need to strengthen protections for women and girls
"In our view it is unacceptable that the UK and Scottish Governments, as well as the EHRC, are unclear on how holding a GRC impacts considerations in regard to applying the single sex exceptions in the EA. We also think it is unacceptable that the current EA and GRA are apparently incompatible, as together they are interpreted by major providers to nullify the single sex exceptions (As explained in Appendix D). Furthermore, the equality protections for women and girls in the EA recognise that women and girls have sex based rights to privacy, dignity, safety, and to recover from abuse and trauma, and to be able to participate in society, and to equality. As such, we believe that the optional nature of the single sex exceptions, meant to uphold these rights, combined with the fact that the EA is open to confusion, nullification and misrepresentation, means that the EA does not adequately protect women and girls."
"As part of its review regarding the need for female-only provision in Scotland, the Scottish Government should identify the ways in which the EA can be strengthened and clarified to ensure that female-only provision is available to uphold the needs and rights of women and girls, and that there is recourse in regard to discrimination where these are not upheld. Our protections should not simply be an option but a requirement; we must be able to take action in regard to discrimination whenever the lack of female-only provision functions to discriminate against us."
"While the EA is reserved legislation, as outlined above the Scottish Government is willing to engage with the UK Government in regard to the EA for reasons of protecting women and girls. As such, we ask that the Scottish Government engages with the UK Government to ensure the EA adequately protects women and girls in the ways we have outlined, and we also ask the Scottish Government to identify any action it can take in respect to devolved powers in order to achieve the same."
Guidance and advice regarding the Equality Act 2010
"In the meantime, we ask that the government produces specific guidance regarding the EA single sex exceptions, as well as a point of contact in an advisory capacity, to help people in Scotland be able to understand the EA as it stands, and how to use the EA to uphold protections therein. Ideally there would be a service similar to the EASS, only it would be providing advice on applying the EA (it is important to note that the EHRC only provides some general forms of guidance, and is not an advice service). We would note that this would be of benefit to all protected groups in the EA, and that the lack of any EA advisory service is clearly a barrier to full use of the EA throughout the UK."
PAGE 44
APPENDIX B
The impact on women’s rights of basing access to a GRC on self-identification
". . . Furthermore, our work has uncovered that even though the single sex exceptions also apply to trans people with GRCs, applying these to people with GRCs in practice is very difficult, as joint protections under the EA and the GRA mean that it is not possible to ascertain if a person holds a GRC. And even if a trans person discloses their status to an employer or other organisation, this information cannot be shared (See Appendix D for our NHS Case Study which demonstrates this).
PAGE 45
APPENDIX C
Equality Act 2010: common misunderstanding and current practice
" . . . Many also claim that blanket policies that preclude trans people from accessing forms of single sex provision are legally prohibited, and again, this is incorrect. In correspondence with our group on this point, the GEO used an example in the explanatory notes to the EA of a group counselling session for female victims of sexual assault that precludes transwomen “because the service provider judged that inclusion would mean the women for whom the service was intended would not attend”. The GEO highlighted that preclusion of trans people on a ‘case by case basis’ refers to the specific set of circumstances under which they are precluded, i.e. ‘case by case basis’ refers to circumstances, not individuals, and this is how services such as group counselling sessions for female victims of sexual assault can lawfully be provided for natal females only.
The kinds of misrepresentations and incoherent positions regarding the EA that we have outlined here are contributing not only to a great deal of confusion around the EA, but also to a climate where those who would invoke those protections are particularly fearful of doing so, as they will be attacked as being transphobic and/or as ‘rolling back trans rights’, and by organisations, not just individuals."