Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

[RoyalCorgi]

From the manifesto:

labour.org.uk/manifesto/tackle-poverty-and-inequality/

"Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision."

This is quite something.

That 'clarification' from Labour is as clear as mud. Are they going to enforce the gender reassignment exemptions or not? These are not the same as the single sex exemptions. And it is not at all clear whether it is even possible to enforce the gender reassignment exemptions when someone has a GRC.

thank god for that oldcrone I read it and couldn't make sense of it. I thought it was the half bottle of white wine I had with my tea, but perhaps not.

In case anyone isn't sure what I mean about 'single sex exemptions' and 'gender reassignment exemptions', this transcript of a talk given by Julian Norman gives a good summary of the exemptions for sex and gender reassignment and how they interact in the EA.

womansplaceuk.org/julian-norman-in-house-of-lords/

The EqA introduced exemptions to protect single-sex services.
...
These exemptions can be used to exclude from female-only services male people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, it is very unclear that the exemptions could be applied to exclude those who have a GRC and have become legally female, because the GRC gives the person the protected characteristic of sex, as well as of gender reassignment.
...
So it is lawful to provide a service only to persons of one sex – but does that include or not those who have acquired their sex through a GRC? It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but does that mean discrimination against males who hold the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (trans women who do not have a GRC) or against females who do (trans men who do not have a GRC and / or trans women with one)? Or both?

The perplexed service provider might turn next to the EHRC for guidance. Their website stated categorically until last Friday that it was unlawful to exclude trans women with a GRC from single sex services. It now says that “A business may have a policy about providing its service to transsexual users, but this policy must still be applied on a case-by-case basis” and that a birth certificate proves legal sex. Again, this is ambiguous as it is now silent as to the effect of a GRC.

I thought there weren't any exemptions in the EA that relate to gender reassignment.

It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

I'd hesitate to disagree with Julian Norman, but in this situation, aren't you discriminating on the basis of sex in one of the situations where it's legal to 'lift the veil' and not treat somebody as their acquired sex?

Maybe lift the veil is an unfortunate expression here - I'm thinking of Company law and lifting the 'corporate veil' in certain circumstances.

I thought there weren't any exemptions in the EA that relate to gender reassignment.

It's here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

SCHEDULE 3 Services and public functions: exceptions

Gender reassignment
28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

This is section 29 that is referred to (I won't copy it here as it is quite long, but is about providing services to people): www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/29

aren't you discriminating on the basis of sex in one of the situations where it's legal to 'lift the veil' and not treat somebody as their acquired sex?

If someone has changed their legal sex by obtaining a GRC, their sex is their acquired sex for all purposes under the law. The exemption means that if it is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" a transwoman with a GRC can be treated differently from a woman. A transwoman with a GRC is legally a woman, so the discrimination is not on the basis of sex, because the transwoman is no longer of the male sex in the eyes of the law. It is treating a transwoman differently from a woman because the transwoman has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but the woman does not.

The effect is the same as not treating someone as their acquired sex.

OK - that makes sense.

WPUK have sought positive clarification (as they interpret it) from the chair of Labour NEC Equalities Committee

womansplaceuk.org/2019/11/26/labour-clarifies-commitment-to-single-sex-exemptions/

By the by, but every time I see the phrase "It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" I inwardly cringe (and others like it). It's necessarily official-sounding, but it also has the effect of alienating people because its not a sentence that trips lightly over the tongue or brain.

When it appears in the middle of an otherwise accessible and readable post, it stands out for all the wrong reasons, - in that I mean people don't read it and therefore the point loses its impact.

Shouldn't we "translate" this kind of clunky, stumbling sentence into something that normal people would say, and only refer to the precise wording when its really needed?

Has anyone posted this yet?

mobile.twitter.com/LGBTLabour/status/1199059959943716864

That LGBT Labour twitter thread seems to be some new twisted jackanory corner, making up complete fairy tales!

That LGBT Labour twitter thread seems to be some new twisted jackanory corner, making up complete fairy tales!

Well fairy tales are known to contain some disturbing truths. Not too hard to work out what they might be in this scenario.

Labour cannot be trusted to uphold genuine single sex exemptions - and until someone with even more 'authority' ( Dear God!) than Dawn Butler steps up, then you should take this as their intention.

It is starting to look like the best thing that could happen to Labour is a complete annihilation at the polls, but someone sensible in Parliament who is able to encourage a regrowth of the party from grass roots up.

I am not quite sure how to do it, given the dominance of Momentum. (The Corbynistas on my Fb feed now share Momentum stuff rather than Labour Party, as if Momentum means Labour like gender means sex.) But the Labour Party needs to get back to being a party of real life experiences, rather than woke causes.

I meant to add that the price would be a resounding victory by Boris and his section of the Tory party.

If searching for positives, I suspect that this will not be good for the Tories.

I agree with Needmoresleep re Labour. What a rubbish situation.

I am not quite sure how to do it, given the dominance of Momentum. (The Corbynistas on my Fb feed now share Momentum stuff rather than Labour Party

It is a cult within a party. And of course, they run a totally separate conference alongside the main Labour conference each year; in totally different locations to the 'main' event.

But the Labour Party needs to get back to being a party of real life experiences, rather than woke causes

This is Jeremy all over......He's always been about 'causes'....even to the detriment of his own marriages and children. As people have often said, 'Student Politics'.

every time I see the phrase "It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" I inwardly cringe

Shouldn't we "translate" this kind of clunky, stumbling sentence into something that normal people would say, and only refer to the precise wording when its really needed?

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative phrase? I've quoted it a number of times because it's not easy to put into normal language what is meant by this phrase, and I thought that by changing the language I might also change the meaning.

I think what it's saying is that if there is a good reason for excluding transwomen from a service for women, this is legitimate, as long as there is a good reason for the exclusion. That is, by including transwomen, there would be a significant negative impact on women. But I can't get that down to a phrase as short as 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

The example they give in the EA is of a transwoman being excluded from a group for female rape victims. The presence of a transwoman could have a negative effect on the women in the group, so it's reasonable to exclude them.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5/3

Labour cannot be trusted to uphold genuine single sex exemptions - and until someone with even more 'authority' ( Dear God!) than Dawn Butler steps up, then you should take this as their intention.

Yes, they've said that they're going to uphold single-sex exemptions, whilst simultaneously allowing everyone to choose their own legal sex. How does that work then?

OldCrone "Do you have a suggestion for an alternative phrase?"

I was fiddling round in Word as you typed
Here are some ideas for discussion/improvement.

Original text: "It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

--
Suggestions:

"If there is a genuine and justifiable reason to limit certain places to same-sex for reasons of safety, privacy or dignity (i.e exclude transgender people of the opposite sex), this is a legal right, as long as it is reasonable. The law was written specifically to ensure that was the case."

--

"It is 100% legally enforceable to have spaces which are restricted to females only, regardless of any transgender status. This means (for example) trans-identifying males could be prohibited from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable."
--

"The Equality Act deliberately includes clear exemptions where people of one sex can be lawfully prohibited from going into spaces for the other sex. This is regardless of any self-identified transgender or gender reassignment status. Such spaces include changing rooms toilets or other spaces where the expectation is for a women-only space and women may be unclothed or otherwise vulnerable in them."

(MNHQ please note this is an exercise in how wording could be phrased to be clear and accessible. Its not a ploy to get round the use of any banned words or phrases)

This means (for example) trans-identifying males could be prohibited from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable

But how? I’m with old crone on this. Can anyone explain how Labour intend to prohibit GRC holders from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable when every piece of their ID will say “female”? I just can’t understand how this is in any way workable.

But how? I’m with old crone on this. Can anyone explain how Labour intend to prohibit GRC holders from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable when every piece of their ID will say “female”? I just can’t understand how this is in any way workable.

To be fair, I was having a tangential moan about how some of the language we use/refer to is inaccessible to the woman on the Clapham Omnibus, so people don't really get the point and the impact of it is lost. My pp was attempting to word one of the common phrases in a way that means understand it instantly, without having to re-read to unpack it.

The titular shitshow of what Labour are up to is separate to that (but yes of course if they mangle same sex into their defintion, this is all for nothing!). Maybe I'll start a new thread for my language gripes?