Legal Feminist explainer on AEA/EHRC case

[Notagain20]

I found it really helpful

legalfeminist.org.uk/

Another link, same piece :

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

Just read it, it does seem to make sense of the judgement and explains its not as bad as I first thought.

Yes it's not the "defeat" it could appear

Thank you - it is worth a try to get my head round it.

Thanks for posting. That is helpful. I hadn't quite understood this:
"At this stage the parties’ arguments essentially converged. Both parties were arguing that a GRC was not relevant to the provision of a single sex service."

The blog doesn't quite give the full impression of how wrong the judge thought some of the arguments were though.

The list of policies which don't match ehrc's current interpretation of the law is interesting. And citizens advice have recently changed theirs to make it more accurate.

I can't help thinking that some foi's of how those policies were drawn up might have demonstrated that those who wrote them did get info from ehrc guidence. But maybe AEA tried that and didn't get any useable info.

I hope there will be a written version of the judgement.

Although only a few of the organisations were foi'able.

"At this stage the parties’ arguments essentially converged. Both parties were arguing that a GRC was not relevant to the provision of a single sex service."

Which wasn't what the EHRC said in 2018 at the time of the GRC consultation. They made a statement that it was relevant.

I don’t know the full background to the ‘transwoman turns up at refuge with children’ example but two things strike me:

1. Given the extraordinary amount of abuse TW receive, why haven’t Stonewall splashed their cash on centres where TW can safely retreat to? Therefore they wouldn’t need to petition the only available women’s refuge in their hour of need.

2. in this hypothetical scenario - what about the woman with two children calling in the middle of the night following violent abuse from her husband. The woman who calls just as the refuge hangs up from the hypothetical TW. What does she do when she’s told there’s no single sex provision available to her? (Legally, doesn’t she have a right to that?)

1) Given the extraordinary amount of abuse TW receive, why haven’t Stonewall splashed their cash on centres where TW can safely retreat to? Therefore they wouldn’t need to petition the only available women’s refuge in their hour of need.

A1) it would undermine their stance
A2) because they really don’t give a shit about anyone - not just girls and lesbians.
A3) SW needs perceived inequality to exist
And to sell its diversity programmes-so providing such facilities helps erase the necessity of SW in the eyes of gullible service providers.

2) in this hypothetical scenario - what about the woman with two children calling in the middle of the night following violent abuse from her husband. The woman who calls just as the refuge hangs up from the hypothetical TW. What does she do when she’s told there’s no single sex provision available to her? (Legally, doesn’t she have a right to that?)

Interesting - potential scarce provision is no longer available to a woman in desperate need, for whom it is intended for. That is harm right there.

Why the obsession with how a person looks? It's not how males look that harms women and justifies single sex spaces, it's how they behave. Who is the judge of whether a trans person is “visually indistinguishable” from a woman, anyway? Men, whose ability to correctly sex people is weaker than women's, because don't have the same vulnerabilities to men as women do?