Thoughts on GEO Report/Truss Announcement

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

The GRA is not changing appreciably. Whilst repeal should be ultimate aim, in my opinion, focus on GRA and the changes that were announced risks losing sight of the real danger to women.


The Report made clear two things:

1. The lack of clarity around gender and specifically the conflation of sex and gender.

1. The Government interpretation of the Equality Act exceptions (single-sex and separate sex services, spaces, communal accommodation and 'gender affected sports') and how these are to operate in practice. In particular the statement of how ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ is to be assessed is of great concern. The government interpretation means that assessment of whether a single-sex space excluding males is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim is conducted on a case-by-case basis with reference to that particular male and balancing this person's needs against those of the women who use that space/service. It is not conducted on a case-by-case basis with reference to the space/service in and of itself.

The statement which means that a male is able to access single-sex spaces and services on the basis of gender identity is also of great concern.

In practice this means that Government interpretation leaves a loophole so large that the reality of single-sex spaces/services disappear, even though the Equality Act exceptions are fully operative. What this means is the appeal to organisations, companies, prisons, hospitals etc to enforce the exceptions under the Equality Act may not be sufficient to retain single-sex spaces. We thought it would. Government interpretation shows that it may not.

In my opinion, the focus needs to shift to bolstering the Equality Act exceptions such that:

Sex and gender are clearly defined and there is no conflation.

EA exceptions are defined on the basis of sex such that a male’s gender identity does not take precedence over biological sex.

Assessment of ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ is conducted in consideration of the space/service and the activities that take place within that. e.g. once a women's prison is defined as a place where the exemption applies such that all males are excluded, then that should be the end of the matter.

I think we have been had. But I am very glad I now know.

Assessment of ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ is conducted in consideration of the space/service and the activities that take place within that. e.g. once a women's prison is defined as a place where the exemption applies such that all males are excluded, then that should be the end of the matter.

I've been informed that phrases like a proportionate means to a legitimate aim are deliberately legally woolly, in order that they can be interpreted in different contexts.

But in this case, it does absolutely need clarifying.

You can't possibly exclude men on a case by case basis.

Using what criteria? Looks?

It's absurd.

We should be excluding men on the basis of their sex. How on earth can you do that if their sex isn't the deciding factor??

And yes, all the terms need further clarification. It's a worry, because in other countries laws have gone through using the word gender, without actually defining what it is.

Exactly.
And when you factor in some of the findings of the Consultation i.e. that fear of intimidation and pressure from funders not to use EA exceptions impacted on people's ability to implement the exceptions, what are we left with in practice?
One quote in the Report was from an individual who said that their small organisation simply couldn't afford to risk getting caught up in legal action resulting from refusing someone access to their single-sex service.

Indeed, and that absolutely got wrenching piece from feminist current, where the women's shelter worker was met with a brick wall, when she tried to advocate on behalf of the women there, because the men were lying in beds next to them and masturbating to porn.

www.feministcurrent.com/2020/09/13/protecting-men-at-the-womens-shelter/

gut wrenching*

By report, do you mean the analysis if the consultation, or is there another report I haven't seen?

The government interpretation means that assessment of whether a single-sex space excluding males is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim is conducted on a case-by-case basis with reference to that particular male and balancing this person's needs against those of the women who use that space/service. It is not conducted on a case-by-case basis with reference to the space/service in and of itself.

Thank you, and I agree - this is why Ann Sinnot's Judicial Review is so essential. It's precisely this reading she is challenging, because it places so many groups and orgs in an absolutely horrendous position.

Karen Ingala Smith has set out why that interpretation would be appalling for women in the shelters NIA provides. And a homeless shelter worker has spoken in stark terms about what this sort of thinking means for the most vulnerable women, too. Case-by-case refuses to acknowledge male-patterned behaviours, women's conditioning to prioritise men (and reframing male people as women allows that conditioning unconscious free rein), and it also ignores that women seeking such support have often developed a real trauma response to male bodies in their spaces. In fact all women are trained from earliest years, and for very good reason, to be guarded around males we don't know well. Why is it that none of that is allowed to count, and a blanket policy that serves female people best permitted, when a group of male people demand otherwise? Why must we regard them all as unique individual male people seeking access, without pausing to consider each unique individual woman whose use of that women's service, and ability to benefit from that use of a women's service, is jeopardised?

Cross post, Datun.

There's been very thoughtful writing on this from Richard Garside, too, in his role as head of a prison reform charity. And equally gut-wrenching - he wrote this before Karen White.

Found it.
You make a really good point about 'case by case' OP. The government thinks it refers to individuals. I get the feeling that the government's opinion on this who issue has changed quite a bit since they wrote the consultation. Theresa may launched the consultation by saying 'trans women are women'. But this is a matter of law - what type of 'case' is referred to in 'case by casr'. I thought ehrc had clarified that it meant service by service.

The analysis of the question on whether people are confident using the exceptions is interesting. The question was for people who provide a single sex service (I didn't answer that one) but a good proportion were not at all confident in using the exceptions. The reasons include fears about funding, criticism & intimidstion if they are not seen as trans inclusive.

The reasons include fears about funding, criticism & intimidstion if they are not seen as trans inclusive.

It's so frustrating. I can't see any problem with places like prisons, rape refuges (ffs), mental health wards, sport, etc, being marked as single sex absolutely unequivocally.

I mean, what on earth are the exceptions for otherwise???

A straightforward confirmation that government funding won't be withdrawn for refuges, shelters, etc, should be totally legitimate on the back of Liz Truss's statement regarding preserving single sex spaces.

I mean what else is she talking about? It's presumably not the changing rooms at M&S.