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?

@SevenWaystoLeave

The right to this single-sex service is already mandated in the Equality Act.

This is flat out false misinformation, often repeated on Mumsnet, but absolutely untrue. There is no mandate in the Equality Act for services to provide single sex provisions. The Equality Act states that it is lawful for service providers to provide single sex provisions in some circumstances - this is not the same as mandating it. It simply means they can if they want to.

If a counselling service wants to provide a service to everyone, regardless of sex or gender, this is legal.

If a counselling service want to provide a woman-only service which includes trans women, this is legal.

If a counselling service wants to provide a woman-only service which excludes trans women, this is legal, provided "exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

How inclusive a service provider chooses to be is up to them. There is no mandate, and it is never illegal to be more inclusive than you have to be, while it may, in some circumstances, be illegal to be less inclusive than you could be.

It is true though.

The word mandate doesn't only mean 'forces'. It allows, commisions, gives authority..

It can be both a directive - which is how you are reading it; or approval, which is how many here read it.

Semantics.

But they don't change the facts that it is entirely legal to offer single sex services.

It should also be illegal to punish a service that has the legal right to do so for actually doing so. That is what is happening right now and is what I see LTs letter as starting to put right by reiterating the right to maintain single sex services without fear of legal retribution.

If a counselling service want to provide a woman-only service which includes trans women, this is legal.

That depends. As the judgement in For Women Scotland vs Scottish Government reminds us, there is no category that lawfully combines all female people and some male people on the basis of self-identification while excluding all other males.

There is inclusion on the basis of biological or legal sex and the EHRC also stipulations inclusion on the basis of being "virtually indistinguishable from members of the other sex". There is no inclusion on the basis of self-id.

So all legal females (whether biologically female or male) = lawful
And all legal females + legal males indistinguishable from other females = lawful

But all legal females + legal males distinguishable from females = unlawful

I shall play Shakira again...

Undistinguishable, my aching bones!

I recognise that I may be wrong. IANAL and all that. It may well be that the EA2010 specifically says it does not prohibit single-sex services, rather than that it mandates the right to provide single sex services. And perhaps that is what we need: a specific right to provide single-sex services where providing mixed-sex services would reduce access for people with the PC of sex.

Thank you CharlieParley.

I'm still missing something though.

Along comes a man who wants to access this service... The organisation refuses him access saying their places are limited to women and he doesn't meet their criteria for inclusion. He sues for unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex because the organisation allows other males access who are legally and biologically male just like him and therefore not women according to the relevant laws.

How could he claim discrimination on the basis of sex if the organisation demonstrably does accept male people? Can't the organisation say he's been rejected because he has man-gender and that's ok because man-gender isn't a PC?

@HipTightOnions

Restricting by gender =/= lawful. It has no basis in law.

Is it actually unlawful though? Can providers who choose not to categorise by sex instead choose their own categories, as long as they are not discriminating against a PC?

They would be though. They would be discriminating on the basis of sex. The male sex.

It's my understanding of Charlie's post that you can't admit some men and not others (unless they have a GRC which would be legal if you want to segregate on the basis of 'legal sex').

So if you say a facility is for women and transwomen, the men could kick off. IF transwomen are only admitted on the basis of self identification, which isn't law, so therefore the other men would be discriminated against.

I agree with others that the law is there, and always has been. It's just been made culturally unacceptable. By the likes of stonewall and the trans lobby.

I would expect the EHRC to undo that unfair cultural hierarchy, in order to be impartial and fair.

So telling service providers and organisations that not only can they provide single sex services and facilities, but that often it's completely necessary and will be a means of protecting women. With examples. There are bloody examples in the law already, for God sake. They're already there!!

Give organisations the backing necessary to fairly uphold the equality act.

Because if organisations do not start doing that, where there is a clear and obvious detriment to women, they are falling foul of the law. And indirect discrimination cases will show that.

And to the poster who thinks most women are fine with it, for God sake, just take a look at the absolute outrage over the gender neutral toilets for the musical Cabaret at the playhouse theatre.

There's no earthly way women on a night out in London possibly with youngsters and elderly relatives want to walk past a line of men with their cocks out pissing in a urinal. And you can bet your life that the men aren't too pleased, either.

And I don't want to hear about a solution that says that well let's take the urinals away then.

Take the urinals away. Make the stalls floor to ceiling with a basin and san pro bin inside, get them cleaned on the hour every hour...

The ever restricting conditions under which everyone has to operate in order to satisfy a law that no one wants, are utterly ludicrous.

@JellySaurus

I recognise that I may be wrong. IANAL and all that. It may well be that the EA2010 specifically says it does not prohibit single-sex services, rather than that it mandates the right to provide single sex services. And perhaps that is what we need: a specific right to provide single-sex services where providing mixed-sex services would reduce access for people with the PC of sex.

The guidance notes make it really clear @JellySaurus

This is what RMW, Stonewall et al have been chipping away at for years. They even state, quite boldly and incorrectly, that there is no right to a single sex space within the EA2010 when a quick read of the relevant guidance notes gives the lie to that, completely, explicitly, in simple words, with clear examples.

There is a clear and inalienable right to single sex services within the guidelines.

Which is why the word 'gender' gets thrown into the mix.

And Stonewall are explicitly working towards removal of that right - as has ben linked to in this thread. Stated in simple words, in black and white, on their own website.

If a counselling service want to provide a woman-only service which includes trans women, this is legal.

No, it's not a "woman only service" if it includes males.

in some circumstances, be illegal to be less inclusive than you could be.

But apparently only if you exclude males.

Being uninclusive to all females is apparently Just Fine.

Which makes this not a T issue but a male supremacist issue. Unequal provisions, rights and access to law based on sex. And yes, women are slowly, painfully, trying to fund themselves to fight this under law, because it's not like anyone else gives a shit, is it?

There is inclusion on the basis of biological or legal sex and the EHRC also stipulations inclusion on the basis of being "virtually indistinguishable from members of the other sex". There is no inclusion on the basis of self-id.

So all legal females (whether biologically female or male) = lawful
And all legal females + legal males indistinguishable from other females = lawful

But all legal females + legal males distinguishable from females = unlawful

This.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There is inclusion on the basis of biological or legal sex and the EHRC also stipulations inclusion on the basis of being "virtually indistinguishable from members of the other sex". There is no inclusion on the basis of self-id.

So all legal females (whether biologically female or male) = lawful
And all legal females + legal males indistinguishable from other females = lawful

But all legal females + legal males distinguishable from females = unlawful

This.

what?? So if a man looks enough like a woman, they are legally allowed?

But they don't change the facts that it is entirely legal to offer single sex services.

It should also be illegal to punish a service that has the legal right to do so for actually doing so

I couldn't agree more. If there is a justifiable reason, a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, any pressure, or harassment needs to be legally addressed.

I'm thinking of the rat nailed to the Vancouver rape crisis centre.

And the deliberate withholding of funds when a rape crisis centre wants to exclude man.

These things should absolutely not be allowed.

How could he claim discrimination on the basis of sex if the organisation demonstrably does accept male people? Can't the organisation say he's been rejected because he has man-gender and that's ok because man-gender isn't a PC?

He can claim discrimination on the basis of sex precisely because there is no "man gender" in law. The protected characteristic is sex. The legal definition of a man is a male person, the legal definition of a woman is a female person.

We can't just make up our terms, so if we want to act lawfully when we exclude someone, we must have a legal reason to do so. You really cannot make up your own category, unlawfully exclude someone with an actual protected characteristic on the basis of your made up category and then claim you haven't discriminated because you made the category up. The alleged discrimination happened on the basis of an actual PC, not the made up one, which is why the man in question has a case.

So if the organisation refuses the man saying their service is for women only, it's irrelevant that they base this on gender because there is only one way to interpret this word in this context and that is as a reference to sex, because that is the only mechanism available to an organisation seeking to provide something for women only.

And if they demonstrably accept male people, how do they justify excluding him? They must give a reason, and the reason they gave to him was that their places are for women and not for men. They can try to justify themselves in a different way afterwards, but again, the question is how?

(No organisation I've seen actually refers to "woman gender" like that. They just say woman-only. Which is what causes confusion - one group means female-only, the other means female plus some males.)

So if you say a facility is for women and transwomen, the men could kick off.

But replace woman-gender with, I don't know, being left-handed.

If the organisation accepted some left-handed females and some left-handed males, a right-handed male couldn't claim sex discrimination.

Why would woman-gender (not a PC) be treated differently in law to lefthandedness (also not a PC)?

The fact they think there is an issue with men who look 'indistinguishable' from women is rather worrying.

It makes me think that they are naive, imagining that there are enough men who look indistinguishable from women, for it to be relevant.

I listened to some of the Faulkner podcast, I haven't finished it. Although she does sound strong and resolute, I'm not sure she fully understands the sexual motivation of the cross dressing side, either.

Thanks again Charley, I have now seen your point that as soon as they use the terms "women" or "men" there is an unambiguous definition in law.

It makes me think that they are naive, imagining that there are enough men who look indistinguishable from women, for it to be relevant.

I think it's a kind of tru trans position from when people who had had "a sex change" were expected to look like a member of the opposite sex.

Sex matters believes the leaked letter ‘shows that the government is putting pressure on the EHCR to stop it doing its job of producing clear guidance based on law’. sex-matters.org/take-action/defend-the-equality-act/

If the organisation accepted some left-handed females and some left-handed males, a right-handed male couldn't claim sex discrimination.

Why would woman-gender (not a PC) be treated differently in law to lefthandedness (also not a PC)?

To keep any men out at all an organisation is relying on the single sex exemptions. That is on the basis of legal sex. They wouldn't be able to admit left handed men but not right handed men to a single sex organisation where they were excluding men.

The fact that we have had nearly 100 posts on this thread and there is clearly still confusion among posters (who are better informed than many in the population) shows the law is still a buggers' muddle. Good luck EHRC with sorting this mess out.

This is the polling data I was talking about - women are more supportive of trans inclusion than men are, across the board. It's Scotland only in this case but AFAIK the pattern is consistent in all public polling on this. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574

It might be because women are socialised to be agreeable; it might be because women tend to be more empathetic; it might be because women deprioritise themselves. This poll also suggests that in a lot of cases people just haven't followed the arguments closely. But that's the data that we have.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

If the organisation accepted some left-handed females and some left-handed males, a right-handed male couldn't claim sex discrimination.

Why would woman-gender (not a PC) be treated differently in law to lefthandedness (also not a PC)?

To keep any men out at all an organisation is relying on the single sex exemptions. That is on the basis of legal sex. They wouldn't be able to admit left handed men but not right handed men to a single sex organisation where they were excluding men.

But I'm suggesting the organisation might argue that that they have not used the EA exemptions and it's not a single-sex facility - it's open to both sexes but only if you meet their other (non-PC) criteria.

@flyingbuttress43

The fact that we have had nearly 100 posts on this thread and there is clearly still confusion among posters (who are better informed than many in the population) shows the law is still a buggers' muddle. Good luck EHRC with sorting this mess out.

Yes. Somebody needs to spend a decent amount of time, thought and discussion to clarify all of this beyond doubt.

@PacificState

This is the polling data I was talking about - women are more supportive of trans inclusion than men are, across the board. It's Scotland only in this case but AFAIK the pattern is consistent in all public polling on this. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574

It might be because women are socialised to be agreeable; it might be because women tend to be more empathetic; it might be because women deprioritise themselves. This poll also suggests that in a lot of cases people just haven't followed the arguments closely. But that's the data that we have.

It's also because nobody mentioned that the transwomen would still have their male genitalia.

Nor the truth about the drugs that would be given to young adults, kids.

When polls have been reworded the answers change quite dramatically - as the article agrees

And the truth is NOT that most women support transwomen in female spaces

The truth is that MANY people didn't express and opinion, didn't know, hadn't thought about it. Leaving the rest somewhere between 2 - 10% of each other, yes or no!

There needs to be a clearly worded poll.. one that doesn't shy away from the facts, the science, the actual behaviours etc.

I dont understand all the fuss, trans have always used the facilities of what they identify with? Whats changed? Its a non issue to get hung up with imo.