EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov

[WarriorN]

According to fair play for women.

Awaiting confirmation via a link

@334bu

Maggie Chapman being interviewed this morning.

If its already been done thank you , if not can someone transcribe the interview please.

@GibbonsGoatsGibbons

YouSetTheTone have you tried pasting the link into an incognito/private page?

Bingo, this worked, thank you!

Reading the full article has left me so angry.

Is anyone else hopeful that the trailing of the single sex guidance in these recent interventions by EHRC a sign that the guidance is going to be firm and unequivocal? A shot across the bows to get houses in order, if you like. Hope is terrible when dashed so I’m trying not to get mine up, but the fact the guidance is mentioned in this context has given me some hope.

Wouldn’t it be great to see ‘case by case’ sent packing and have guidance to say whole settings can be designated as single sex?

🤞Betty.

@Fieldofgreycorn

Very sensible letter from the EHRC.

But trans can be fluid, can't it. Look at Pips Bunce and Eddie Izzard. You can be a boy one day and a girl the next. Or is she saying that those two people aren't trans?

It shouldn’t be about whether someone is ‘trans’ (whatever that means) or not.

It’s about whether someone is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a psychiatrist and whether they are male or female, or rather whether someone is treated ‘as if’ they are male or female.

The reason - because they have likely been subject to various biopsychosocial factors that mean their gender identity and aspects of neural development result in their not being able to tolerate having a body or hormones of their birth sex and function better with these altered to a more appropriate beneficial configuration and social presentation.

But gender dysphoria was taken out of the DSM because it's not a thing that need diagnosis. I mean it wasnt that long ago it was taken out on the say so of trans people. So does it need psychiatric services and should be in the DSM or doesn't it need psychiatric services or in fact a diagnosis and shouldnt be in the DSM. Maybe someone somewhere should make up their mind on this.

But gender dysphoria was taken out of the DSM

Gender Dysphoria is in DSM 5

@BettyFilous

Is anyone else hopeful that the trailing of the single sex guidance in these recent interventions by EHRC a sign that the guidance is going to be firm and unequivocal? A shot across the bows to get houses in order, if you like. Hope is terrible when dashed so I’m trying not to get mine up, but the fact the guidance is mentioned in this context has given me some hope.

It occurred to me that if EHRC firms up the guidance on language, all those Local Authorities who are demanding equality as part of agreeing funding, may come a cropper.

I will be very interested in the guidelines LA's are working with (and indeed Government) which run counter to EA10. We had cases of DV refuges being refused funding because they were single sex.

It's all very messy, but that there tunnel isn't looking anywhere near so dark

I get the impression that TRA Twitter is worried that the EHRC are going to do away with the “case by case” basis for applying the single sex exceptions and make it simpler for service providers to apply the exceptions.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

I get the impression that TRA Twitter is worried that the EHRC are going to do away with the “case by case” basis for applying the single sex exceptions and make it simpler for service providers to apply the exceptions.

I’ve been wondering if that’s the case too - i.e. case by case is clarified as being “service X is applying the SSE and is for female (sex) service users only ” rather than case-by-case by individual “is Fae Pinky-Braine lady enough to use service X?”

“is Fae Pinky-Braine lady enough to use service X?”

I really hope they use this exact phrase as an example.

I always thought that “case by case” referred to particular situations and not to individuals, eg organising a triathlon event is to be completely single sex, rather considering Fae Pinky-Braine’s specific entry to that event.

Case by case interpreted as ‘individual by individual’ is unworkable. It implies that someone on the ground is having to make a judgment that one person is acceptable but not another with no certain grounds for making the decision which may well vary from one provider to another. The only sensible policy is situation by situation.

@AlwaysTawnyOwl

Case by case interpreted as ‘individual by individual’ is unworkable. It implies that someone on the ground is having to make a judgment that one person is acceptable but not another with no certain grounds for making the decision which may well vary from one provider to another. The only sensible policy is situation by situation.

But that is exactly what is being pushed on the residential school trip thread at the mo.

@AlwaysTawnyOwl

Case by case interpreted as ‘individual by individual’ is unworkable. It implies that someone on the ground is having to make a judgment that one person is acceptable but not another with no certain grounds for making the decision which may well vary from one provider to another. The only sensible policy is situation by situation.

It would be very useful if this could be clarified as TRAs / Stonewall etc say that it is individual by individual...

It wasn't supposed to mean individual person by individual person. It actually meant individual setting by individual setting.

So a rape crisis centre could say no - obvious reasons why - and that would be it.

Marks and Spencer could say no - similar reasons - and that would be it.

The reasons don't even have to be 'It's obvious' you just pick up the reasons that are set out clearly in the EA2010, see below (my bold)

We use the exemptions as written below, yet still some funders then refuce or reduce funding as we are not diverse enough - in a rape crisis centre, run for and by women!

--------------------

Single sex services are permitted where:

• only people of that sex require it;

• there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;

• if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;

• they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);

• they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or

• they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.

These exceptions would allow:

• a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;

• a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;

• a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;

• separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;

• separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;

• a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

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

Note, this is the SAME legislation, same text, same everything that some TRAs say explicitly makes single sex spaces illegal - including our favourite expert barrister and, of course, Stonewall!

THIS is why women make such a hue and cry about it. Becuase even when the law is explicit there are some whoi make such baldly bad faith arguments to say the opposite - and are taken on board by many porganisations that should know better - including the Scottish and Welsh governments.

The only sensible policy is situation by situation.
That makes perfect sense. I hadn’t realised how ‘case by case’ was being read differently before. It can’t mean literally individual decisions because that would be discriminatory at individual outcome level and miss the main point that women need to make. It would mean that some men could use women’s services and places, not that no men could use them.

Cannot link it but have the EHRC latest newsletter, with text of their letter to Nicola. Not good.

@butnobodytoldme what do you mean?

THIS is why women make such a hue and cry about it. Becuase even when the law is explicit there are some whoi make such baldly bad faith arguments to say the opposite - and are taken on board by many porganisations that should know better - including the Scottish and Welsh governments.

This. There are many examples mentioned of single sex spaces, and two example scenarios where it is specifically mentioned that it can be required that they are biologically female only even when the "transsexual woman" has a GRC. They are a rape counselling service, to avoid causing women distress, and the occupational requirements for a rape counsellor role.

Just imagine you are female from birth and have a need or a wish in whatever circumstances, to be with other humans who are female from birth, ( and of course will always be female by every cell in their brains and bodies, because they are 'xx' by chromosome).

You might prefer to use a 'ladies' lavatory or changing room, or to have medical attention from a fellow 'xx', female from birth, person.
You might choose a women-only group for a social activity.

You might, one day, attempt to get into a 'men-only' club. But there is no equivalence. Your presence puts you at risk, not the men. Even if a man is old and weak,* it is unlikely you could trap and overpower one, you certainly could not rape or impregnate him.

You could wear clothes usually worn by men; you could even have a private doctor give you a bit of paper saying you have 'chosen to be a man'. The gentlemen's club might or might not choose to give you membership, but even if they did agree, they know you put no existing members at risk of harm.

The SEX based (i.e. xx chromasome based) legal protection is there for a reason.

*Invisible Women has detail of the relative grip strength of athletic young women and old men, who remain stronger.