EHRC single sex guidance out

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Here: www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

I'm off to read it...

@tabbycatstripy

Maugham calling women racists again:

‘I tweeted about it yesterday (twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/…) and we are taking advice from Counsel. Some of the logic is v problematic - eg once upon a time lots of white women didn't like sharing toilets with black women and would steer clear of places that had mixed race toilets...’

Yes, Jolyon, but when the same toilets (rightly) were able to serve the needs of both black people and white people, they still weren’t mixed sex.

Also, I think men made those laws.

This lazy half assed appropriation of anyone else's oppression in the name of I WANT IT NOW is starting to really wear thin and the world is increasingly seeing through it.

No you muppet, it isn't like that is it? Because you're not arguing that no sex segregation is ever acceptable (and good luck finding a reason why it isn't acceptable) you're arguing that sex segregation is right and proper and some males should have the right to go in female spaces despite their sex.

It's batshit.

And ew, skin colour is nothing like 'I cannot use a bathroom with that person who I perceive as a male in there with me'.

All this does repeatedly is shout 'I'm a selfish, woman-hating misogynist incapable of respecting anyone else or thinking about anything else except what I want!'.

Good luck with that jules, patience is wearing really thin.

Men making this argument - do they think there's a race that's statistically proven to be a higher risk to others? Which race do they believe that to be?

"Females! Abandon your boundaries!"

"Wtf? Why?"

"Because they're a really annoying boundary to our personal freedoms to do whatever the fuck we like at all times regardless of impact on others!"

Get a bloody grip.

But it's my understanding that if you are sued, having ignored the advice from the EHRC, courts would take a very dim view.

EHRC produce two sorts of advice - statutory code and non-statutory guidance. The statutory code holds a lot of weight in court, the non-statutory guidance not so much.

Unfortunately, this is non-statutory guidance and the statutory code still contains 'case-by-case' and other things that are very difficult to work with.

EHRC really now need to update the stat code. They were asked to do so following the EA inquiry:

Recommendation 15

We do not believe that non-statutory guidance will be sufficient to bring the clarity needed in what is clearly a contentious area. We recommend that, in the absence of case law the EHRC develop, and the Secretary of State lay before Parliament, a dedicated Code of Practice, with case studies drawn from organisations providing services to survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. This Code must set out clearly, with worked examples and guidance, (a) how the Act allows separate services for men and women, or provision of services to only men or only women in certain circumstances, and b) how and under what circumstances it allows those providing such services to choose how and if to provide them to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. (Paragraph 190)

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmwomeq/96/9602.htm

It's interesting that they've more or less done all this now, except for making it statutory.

On reflection, they are similar as racism and sexism are based on ignorance.

To be fair to all, women and men of all races require single sex facilities. If a group of men aren't happy with this, they need to take action to campaign for some separate unisex facilities.

It also needs to be remembered that it's male people desperate to be allowed access to female people in a state of undress and vulnerability regardless of female consent.

There's no women jumping up and down desperate to be allowed to pee, be catheterised, intimately examined, undressed, stranded on a hospital bed or have a miscarriage in a loo with male strangers present.

How bloody obvious does it need to be? Female people are not a bloody resource. Male people do not have a 'right' to be provided with female presence to meet their needs, wtf are these people on?

God I wish we could get males out of womens prisons-what else has to happen before this crap stops? Why are we paying taxes, to fund prisons that actively put us in danger?

@Artichokeleaves

"Female people are not a bloody resource. Male people do not have a 'right' to be provided with female presence to meet their needs"

I agree, it reminds me of incels too. Men who feel they are due women giving them sex. It's all about male entitlement to be pleased and serviced by women.

When I imagine the women having to share facilities with Lia Thomas it sends chills up my spine.

It's interesting that they've more or less done all this now, except for making it statutory.

I wonder if they're testing the waters. To see what kind of pushback would come their way.

And how effective it is.

Agree @Datun it's bad law. A problem when words 'sex' and 'gender' are used interchangeably and 'gender identity' is quoted as a protected characteristic rather than 'gender reassignment'. It seems as though lobby groups are pushing a wilful misrepresentation of the law but unfortunately the lack of clarity between the GRA and EA has made it easy to do this. It's really not hard to see how legally prioritising self-declared gender identity over biological sex could jeopardise women's and children's safeguarding and safe, appropriate delivery of healthcare. So why is anyone pushing for this?

The "mixed race toilets" thing is especially egregious because in the US when toilets were separated by race, black women were forced to use the same toilets as men.

People who spew that line are doing exactly what Jim Crow did in denying that black women are women and black women deserve female-only spaces for their safety and dignity. It's disgusting.

It also needs to be remembered that it's male people desperate to be allowed access to female people in a state of undress and vulnerability regardless of female consent.

There's no women jumping up and down desperate to be allowed to pee, be catheterised, intimately examined, undressed, stranded on a hospital bed or have a miscarriage in a loo with male strangers present.

How bloody obvious does it need to be? Female people are not a bloody resource. Male people do not have a 'right' to be provided with female presence to meet their needs, wtf are these people on?

Yes, it's really quite telling.

The "mixed race toilets" thing is especially egregious because in the US when toilets were separated by race, black women were forced to use the same toilets as men.

People who spew that line are doing exactly what Jim Crow did in denying that black women are women and black women deserve female-only spaces for their safety and dignity. It's disgusting.

I didn't know that fuck these people and their misogyny and appropriation of real civil rights struggles.

This EHRC guidance does not clarify the law. In fact it contravenes the law.

The fact is that if anyone is excluded they can bring a claim for unlawful discrimination, and demand to see their evidential base for their decision. It cannot be a generalized set of evidence but must be specific to the person they are excluding.

Course it doesn't. You exclude people on the basis of their sex. It's perfectly legitimate, and says so in the equality act. You can't exclude person A on the basis of their sex, but not person B. That would be unlawful.

That's what single sex exceptions ARE.

Honestly I do despair for some people. We discriminate all the time. You have to.

In heavyweight boxing, you discriminate against lightweights. In children's schools, you discriminate against adults sitting next to them. In the Paralympics, you discriminate against able-bodied people.

Do people really think that laws have been written to make sure that men can beat women at sport, get undressed with young girls, and walk around naked in the female changing room?

In your dreams.

But apparently only if the person is male

Since this argument involves the attitude of 'stupid women with protected characteristics they won't learn to control deserve to be excluded from anything so that male people can choose from all the options open to them to match their feelings and needs'.

No. That is really not the case.

The guidance was always intended to allow TW respect for their gender identity while at the same time permitting female needs to be met and continue to be met in single sex settings. It's the absolute ungenerosity and lack of reciprocal care and empathy for females that has led to this guidance being clarified because the attitude is you can never say no to a male and fuck what happens to females as a result.

Some females need sex based spaces, that are not available to be entered by males regardless of how that male person identifies. Not everything is for male people and about male people all the time in all situations. This is not hard to understand.

Redlake It's also legitimate to exclude on grounds of race. For example, a domestic violence or rape crisis service for ethnic minority women can be just for those women.

‘ The fact is that if anyone is excluded they can bring a claim for unlawful discrimination, and demand to see their evidential base for their decision. It cannot be a generalized set of evidence but must be specific to the person they are excluding.’

If the person is a natal male, and there is a legitimate aim in excluding males, and the decision is proportionate to need, it’s fine.

This EHRC guidance does not clarify the law. In fact it contravenes the law.

In what sense? Where is it written in the EA something which this guidance "contravenes"?

Privacy and dignity for women and girls can be a legitimate aim, I think.

You also need to look at the section on "positive action".

@Redlake

This EHRC guidance does not clarify the law. In fact it contravenes the law.

The fact is that if anyone is excluded they can bring a claim for unlawful discrimination, and demand to see their evidential base for their decision. It cannot be a generalized set of evidence but must be specific to the person they are excluding.

Nope.

We exclude all men, every man. Always. Our case analysis was, as per the law, our provision and the needs of our clients. We decided that we could not accommodate men within our provision, for many reasons included in the previous guidance notes, and, as our provision has not changed, our client base, numbers, have not decreased, that's it. Our case analysis is done.

It does not, and never has meant person by person. It has always meant by situation.

So M+S can decide that it's single sex provision can include gender identities and M&Co can decide that theirs do not. If they both have their own reasons they are both entitled, in law, to make those policies. And their customers have every right to complain, object, boycott, as they see fit.

Your interpretation is the same as that of RMW, Stonewall etc. And they are, and have always been, wrong. That's the point of this clarification. To correct those misunderstandings.

For example, a domestic violence or rape crisis service for ethnic minority women can be just for those women.

Rightly so, and a MTF trans one could be just for MTF trans people. Wouldn't you think that was a legitimate aim?

Rightly so, and a MTF trans one could be just for MTF trans people. Wouldn't you think that was a legitimate aim?

I agree it would be. I'm sure various groups that serve the needs of MTF trans people could collate the evidence of need for a service and provide it or make the case for new funding for it. They just need to sort the data they must have been collecting.

Do people really think that laws have been written to make sure that men can beat women at sport, get undressed with young girls, and walk around naked in the female changing room?

We have had years of people working very hard to create laws that will do exactly this, to be fair. It does make you wonder ...