Liz Truss shift

[purpleboy]

inews.co.uk/news/politics/government-no-interest-banning-trans-people-single-sex-toilets-liz-truss-tells-equalities-tsar-1474413

Is this a shift in thinking from Liz Truss?

Always using sex in one sentence then gender in another....rendering what she says impossible to interpret. There is no such thing as a single sex space if someone of the opposite sex can just waltz right in.

In the letter, seen by i, Ms Truss wrote: “The Equality Act makes it clear that providers have the right to restrict use of spaces on the basis of sex as currently takes place.
“The Government has no interest in changing the current situation where transgender people are able to use facilities of their chosen gender.

How is this not a contradiction?

Unless the government has no intention of making it law that only females can use women's services and only males can use men's services, but instead clarify and strengthen the right for services to be defined as sex-specific.

Enforcing single sex services would be almost as bad a law as the GRA. Supporting the legitimacy of single sex services, and of sex over gender in the provision of such services, is the most honest, compassionate and liberal way forward.

Such a cop out. An utter contradiction.

We have single sex spaces and anyone can go in them.

Hmm. On first reading of the letter in that article, it would appear so. But it isn't completely clear. However, the headline is misleading.

From the letter:

The Government is committed to maintaining the safeguards that allow organisations to provide single-sex services. The Equality Act makes it clear that providers have the right to restrict spaces on the basis of sex as currently takes place. The Government has no interest in changing the current situation where transgender people are able use the facilities of their chosen gender.

I share your desire to ensure that service providers and others are as clear as possible about the law

Which sounds a bit like passing the buck to me - as in the Government is going to leave it up to service providers to legally restrict users to ensure a single sex provision rather than telling trans people that they have to use the correct facilities for their sex.

I am getting more and more fed up by seeing LGBT in these conversations - it is all about the T, always.

How is this not a contradiction?

Both statements mean that the EA will remain as it is. Currently individual organisations set the use of their facilities, which are perfectly entitled to be single sex if appropriate.

In practice it would make for terrible legislation for the government to try to dictate, for every situation, what should be single sex and what mixed.

The problem remains Genderists capturing/bulling institutions to make things mixed sex (by 'gender') when they really shouldn't be.

The Government is committed to maintaining the safeguards that allow organisations to provide single-sex services. The Equality Act makes it clear that providers have the right to restrict spaces on the basis of sex as currently takes place. The Government has no interest in changing the current situation where transgender people are able use the facilities of their chosen gender.

The EA allows for single-sex services.

Anyone who says they are the opposite sex can use the services designed for the opposite sex.

Therefore there can be no single-sex services.

the Government is going to leave it up to service providers to legally restrict users to ensure a single sex provision rather than telling trans people that they have to use the correct facilities for their sex.

That's my reading of it too and, while I'm no legal expert, isn't that how the current legislation is written - leaving it up to providers? If so this doesn't sound like a shift, more a re-statement of their current position, albeit in politician speak.

I share your desire to ensure that service providers and others are as clear as possible about the law. Which sounds a bit like passing the buck to me

I'm honestly hopeful it means tightening the guidance so Stonewall et al can't do sleight of hand calling sex gender.

The law, as written, protects women's rights, Stonewall hasn't actually managed to change that either in court or parliament. The key is to get the law understood and implemented.

The EA allows for single-sex services. Anyone who says they are the opposite sex can use the services designed for the opposite sex. Therefore there can be no single-sex services.

It's always been the case that organisations can do that if they want. No-one made M+S change their fitting rooms to mixed sex.

Tempting as it is right now, the government legislating to change that is an awful idea.

@donquixotedelamancha

I share your desire to ensure that service providers and others are as clear as possible about the law. Which sounds a bit like passing the buck to me

I'm honestly hopeful it means tightening the guidance so Stonewall et al can't do sleight of hand calling sex gender.

The law, as written, protects women's rights, Stonewall hasn't actually managed to change that either in court or parliament. The key is to get the law understood and implemented.

Stonewall hasn't tried to change anything, it disagrees with some current legislation such as spouse veto but otherwise has just joined in with invitations to consultations. Its the GCcrits who have tried to change the current position and have failed, so it seems. Maybe with real wars in the horizon, Truss has been told to surrender in the culture war. Looking at proceedings on the GRA debate, its no wonder

Does the recent FWS case not mean that spaces have to be either single sex or mixed sex so mixed sex but single gender spaces would be illegal?

the current situation where transgender people are able use the facilities of their chosen gender.

I'm not sure I understand this though. Does it mean that e.g. M&S are not invoking the EA exemptions in any way, but are instead making their own choice of how to segregate people? So they could, if they wanted to, provide changing rooms for, say, introverted/extroverted people?

@Floisme

the Government is going to leave it up to service providers to legally restrict users to ensure a single sex provision rather than telling trans people that they have to use the correct facilities for their sex.

That's my reading of it too and, while I'm no legal expert, isn't that how the current legislation is written - leaving it up to providers? If so this doesn't sound like a shift, more a re-statement of their current position, albeit in politician speak.

Yes.

So the crisis centre I work / vounteer for says no, we are single sex, we do not take men including transwomen - quote the EA2010 exemption.

The centre we work in a loose non affiliated manner with says yes, we will accept men, including transwome* and they too quote the same EA2010 section.

If the government reinforce this, say it over and over and over again. THIS IS HOW IT IS! then, in a world we do not live in, I can go back to getting the mainstream funding I used to be able to rely on because we aren't doing anything wrong, immoral, nasty! And I can probably push back against those funding streams and quote legislation, government voice etc at them.

It is as @JellySaurus said, the only sensible thing to do. We, the service provider, should be able to choose who we do and do not provide services for without all being harangued, defunded, for not beng something else!

And Stonewall et al need to be shown up very clearly for bastardising the law and causing untold anguish to so very many people.

I shall certainly be giving this a day out, I shall go back to one of those national funders who turned us down and I will include this in my bid!

*They have a very different set up to us. Their offer makes sense for them!

Stonewall hasn't tried to change anything, it disagrees with some current legislation such as spouse veto but otherwise has just joined in with invitations to consultations. Its the GCcrits who have tried to change the current position and have failed, so it seems. Maybe with real wars in the horizon, Truss has been told to surrender in the culture war. Looking at proceedings on the GRA debate, its no wonder

Rubbish @DisgustedofManchester

Absolute and utter rubbish.

The Government does not want to pass any legislation on this issue. It has hit the brakes on GRC reform but does not wish to do anything else.

Does it mean that e.g. M&S are not invoking the EA exemptions in any way, but are instead making their own choice of how to segregate people? So they could, if they wanted to, provide changing rooms for, say, introverted/extroverted people?

Not quite, as personality types are not included n the EA2010

But yes, M+S have chosen to make their changing rooms mixed sex. Although the male facilities tend to remain male, becasue everyone knows how uncofortable men would be with women in their changing rooms.

And M+S could choose to revert to single sex use. They could simply says so, no explanation, no advance notice, nothing.

It is contradictory, there need to be clarity on what the words mean and what the service providers can do, also consequences from the expected bullying and harassment that will be aimed at some organizations keeping single sex spaces.

Never thought I'd be saying this but... that inherent contradiction is what allows freedom of choice for organisations. The MUST be organisations that happily cater for transpeople. We can't close down all facilities to transgender people. TRAs would love that to be the backlash, and round we'd go again. What we DO need is choice. Choice with no political repercussions.

So very fed up with all this word salad and cowardice which placates the TQ and tries very hard not to look at the 50% of the populace losing their rights. Even to political representation.

And yes to PP. LGB has bugger all to do with any of this, the issue is all T.

It's only contradictory if sex and gender are fudged together, and gender given priority over sex. And if single-sex exemptions, together with freedom of speech to defend them, have to be fought for rather than respected.

I feel sick. They are simply dropping the issue like a hot potato hiding behind no self id as though that has any real world meaning. It's down to the EHRC now and they are being put under pressure due to this Safe to be Me conference in June.

Not quite, as personality types are not included n the EA2010
But yes, M+S have chosen to make their changing rooms mixed sex.

But, Samphire, they haven't just made them mixed sex/for everyone though. They are still "women's" and "men's".

And Liz Truss says transgender people are able use the facilities of their chosen gender.

So M&S etc are apparently segregating "by gender", although "gender" isn't covered by the EA either.

Having opened the stable doors by sheer stupidity and lack of due diligence they're now all scared and not wanting to take responsibility for trying to recapture the horse.

The female electorate don't behave in the ways that terrify, they are the easier ones to upset. We know in reality what happens when the responsibility is dumped on a service to try saying no to males: they get attacked and rats nailed to the door and harassed into oblivion until they say they promise to be all about males and spit on female interests like all good services should.

And a leadership race is large on the cards and I would bet that everyone's trying to look neutral and likeable. I never used to 'hate' anything, I thought it was morally wrong, but I am really starting to get there with 'hating' this abysmal abnegation, cowardice and misogyny towards those born female in this country, while repeating lies that they don't believe in sex.

They fucking well do.

Total hogwash @DisgustedofManchester

Here in stonewalls own words

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

4th bullet down - remove single sex exemptions