Schedule 9 (1) of the Equality Act

[Chickenish]

I will not be naming the refuge for obvious reasons, but I went onto the website of my old refuge in the UK and found this invoked on the job adverts.

Just in case anyone was worried that every refuge has given in already.

Give me a clue. What are your objections?

It's reassuring to know there are still some safe places left for women to go to when they"re escaping domestic violence.

I had to Google Schedule 9 to understand exactly which aspect of the act was being used, I found that there has been at least one FOI request (in 2016) asking for justification of schedule 9 being used in a job advert for a women's refuge. A poster on another thread is homeless because there is no single sex refuge provision available to them, they are not in the UK, but it demonstrates how important it is that we fight to the rights afforded us by the EA.

Objections? I am happy. I have a concern for women to have a safe space to run to. If you don’t understand that...

Not enough info. In your OP. Not a mind reader.

I know that there are services continuing to be single-sex here in Scotland. Trouble is that most (possibly all) are too scared to advertise that fact. So the only public voices on social media are the ones calling survivors bigots for needing a space free from males.

Maybe not enough background knowledge in your head, @MrsKittyFane1. You can always do an internet search.

Patnot
I'll make a mental note to do comprehensive internet research before replying to every vague thread I read and reply to on MN in future.
Thank you for your advice.

You're welcome.

Schedule 9, part 1 of the Equality act is the exception that permits a job to be open only to people with a particular protected characteristic, as long as it is a genuine occupational requirement and is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is what allows women's refuges to employ female only frontline staff and also specify that this does not mean tw.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1

Explanatory notes here:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/1

This does sound hopeful OP but it's worth looking further at their policies because there are some bizzare interpretations around. I saw this the other day - Kairos Women's Space's advert for a project worker, to work with women who 'may have experienced struggles with mental wellbeing, addictions, involvement in the criminal justice system and domestic/sexual abuse.' -

Please note that this post is open to women only under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1 (inclusive of non-binary people, trans and intersex women.)

goodmoves.com/vacancy/a4s0N000000H3CPQA0/kairos-womens-space-project-worker

I'm not sure what they've done here is even legal unless they mean female only NB people

Please note that this post is open to women only under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1 (inclusive of non-binary people, trans and intersex women

I agree that this reads like men who identify as non-binary may apply.

Surely this then discriminates against men who are not non-binary? Might be the first case of non-non-binary discrimination.

Non-binary of course has no meaning in law. because it is bollocks

It also discriminates against females who don't identify as women.

They're invoking an exemption in such a way that the only people who might be excluded are females. Genius.

And of course a man could identify as non-binary for the purpose of getting the job, and then start identifying as a man again after he got the job.

Popchyk all places ostensibly for women only that bar entry to men who do not identify as women or non-binary but allow entry to men who do just that, are guilty of illegally and directly discriminating against men.

The only way indirect discrimination is legal is on the basis of a protected characteristic. So if a place is female-only it has to invoke the sex exemptions, and operate either on the basis of biological or legal sex, ie allow only females or allow only females plus males who are legally female (GRC-holders).

Those operating single-sex spaces on a self-id basis are illegally discriminating against men.

Yes, that's how it seems.

See also the English Cricket Board who exclude females who identify as non-binary from the women's game, but allow men who identify as women into the women's game.

So they are allowing some women and some men into the female-only category. But excluding others based on criteria that has no basis in law.

Lawsuit right there.

Nope. Definitely no brackets (we’ll pretend you’re not a man if you say so).