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...

Samphire I am loving the name change!

OK that is great. Now what?

Send it to the local authorities to request they return the loos and changing rooms to be single sex at the DCs school?

Who's with me?

Baroness Falkner has just clearly stated on Woman’s Hour:

“Trans people should be generally accommodated the way that they present.”

That’s very clear and echoes their previous guidance. The new guidance restates the law and the examples. “Present” isn’t just about clothes but includes changing physical sex characteristics.

It’s also clear that Baroness Falkner knows what she is doing in that conversation despite the ostensibly careful replies. She’s trying to encourage most services/ shops to provide private or gender neutral facilities in as many places as possible.

Of course trans women can be excluded from female rape crisis services and groups or similar or prisons (most ‘trans women’ are not in female prisons) as per previous guidance.

It is still not acceptable (and likely unlawful) to tell a transitioned trans woman to use the male facilities eg toilets/ changing rooms. It’s also clear that no one should be challenging (transitioned) law abiding trans people in public spaces about who and what they are.

It’s common sense and balance when you take the heat and ideology out of it. Not everyone is going to be 100% happy but that’s often the case with extremes.

“Trans people should be generally accommodated the way that they present.”

This is my view and probably the view of several people here.

The exceptions to 'generally accommodated', for me, are single-sex spaces that are there for legitimate reasons such as safety, dignity and privacy.

Walking down the street, speaking to your insurance company, drinking in the pub, chatting about climate change, working with colleagues - no reason to discriminate by sex, in general, so no issue there with 'accommodating' anyone.

I won't believe male people are female, though, privately.

@Fieldofgreycorn
It is still not acceptable (and likely unlawful) to tell a transitioned trans woman to use the male facilities eg toilets/ changing rooms. It’s also clear that no one should be challenging (transitioned) law abiding trans people in public spaces about who and what they are.

Then doesn’t that mean a sex segregated space like a changing room cannot exclude a male so long as they are a trans woman? (What does ‘fully transitioned mean’? Who’s to know if clothes are on?)

Earlier in the thread I asked several times and people answered that some women’s spaces places really could exclude trans woman.

The exceptions to 'generally accommodated', for me, are single-sex spaces that are there for legitimate reasons such as safety, dignity and privacy.

I agree with that but I would argue that no one’s privacy and dignity is being violated by private closed cubicles.

Of course we can all believe what we like. I don’t believe male people are female people but I do believe sex isn’t just chromosomes or reproductive function and you can change some physical aspects of sex.

It is still not acceptable (and likely unlawful) to tell a transitioned trans woman to use the male facilities eg toilets/ changing rooms. It’s also clear that no one should be challenging (transitioned) law abiding trans people in public spaces about who and what they are.

We're going to need a definition of 'transitioned'.

“Trans people should be generally accommodated the way that they present.”

With the exceptions of when a single sex service is required by females and it is proportional that a trans person's wishes and choice of presentation does not remove a needed and accessible resource from females. Who would otherwise be excluded.

This really isn't hard. This is not always only about trans people. I'm sorry but these female subhuman thingys matter just as much.

It is still not acceptable (and likely unlawful) to tell a transitioned trans woman to use the male facilities eg toilets/ changing rooms.

What is a transitioned trans woman though? We still don't have clear definitions of what this means?

Is it both India Willoughby and Jamie Wallis? Bearing in mind there is no legal requirement for surgery, hormones or female presenting appearance.

If you don't agree that Jamie Wallis fits the criteria then at what point between him and India Willoughby does a male person become a 'transitioned trans woman'?

Private cubicles are a great idea in many situations, but not all.

People who need carers to go in with them need enough space for this in any enclosed space.

We need to ensure privacy and dignity where they are not possible or where the negatives to this (e.g. the lower number of facilities available in the space) outweigh the positives.

I'm not sure what Field means by 'transitioned' - physical surgery? I'm uneasy about excluding people according to how much surgery they've had.

Of course trans women can be excluded from female rape crisis services and groups or similar or prisons (most ‘trans women’ are not in female prisons) as per previous guidance.

Services aren't excluding them though - many are refusing to provide single sex services (ERCC, SWA as examples) because they have been deliberately incorrectly advised by organisations such as Stonewall.

The Times Senior Sports Correspondant reported that Emily Bridges could raise an action for being discriminated against. When it was pointed out to him that there are exemptions in the Equality Act which legally exclude even those with a GRC from single sex sports, he admitted he had simply taken the incorrect advice given by a captured organisation and hadn't verified that it was correct.

In Scottish prisons, self id is in place despite the Equality Act despite the obvious threat to women.

In fact, all these examples show that despite the legislation, organisations are simply ignoring them.

And yet again, self id means that women are silenced from challenging any males in single sex spaces. 'Transitioned' transwomen are still male. The point it that they are single sex spaces.

t is still not acceptable (and likely unlawful) to tell a transitioned trans woman to use the male facilities eg toilets/ changing rooms.

It's not acceptable (and likely unlawful) to tell a female person to reframe their trauma or go without support for their rape, or that they can either be homeless in a tent or go back to the bloke who has tried to kill them, or to discharge themselves from a hospital ward, or to exclude them from anything so that said TW can take a preferred choice of everything.

This has all happened, and no one has cared in the slightest about it happening to females and leaving them no options at all, so my sympathy is getting a bit low for TQ+ people not liking the options put to them here.

The TQ+ lobby need to start campaigns for third spaces. That's it really. That's all.

If it is ok to tell a female person that if they don't want to use mixed sex facilities they can self exclude and that's their problem?

Then it must be ok to tell a TQ+ person that if they don't want to use the facilities of their sex they can self exclude and that's their problem.

You can't have it both ways.

Earlier in the thread I asked several times and people answered that some women’s spaces places really could exclude trans woman.

Yes. Excluding trans women from some female only spaces isn’t the same as telling them to use male facilities.

Then doesn’t that mean a sex segregated space like a changing room cannot exclude a male so long as they are a trans woman?

As the EHCR guidance states, if they’re single private cubicles or alternatively if they’re not providing separate facilities for trans people, then probably not, no.

Also
Example: A women’s clothes shop has changing areas for customers to try on garments in cubicles. The shop decides that it is not necessary to exclude trans women as the privacy and decency of all users can be assured by the provision of those separate cubicles.

It is most likely to be proportionate to exclude, modify or limit trans people’s access where a service provider has limited resources and physical space to alter the way the service is provided or if they are dealing with groups with particular needs; for example, female victims of male sexual assault who may feel unable to participate in the presence of someone they perceive as male.

I.e. it is lawful to exclude if they’re not individual cubicles or it’s a support group.

I think it's pretty fair - you can have single sex provision where it's appropriate and proportionate. I read that to mean where's there's a legitimate reason to segregate rather than because you simply don't like the idea or trans.

They mention a variety of specific circumstances that we all would agree with and they mention having additional provision for trans where necessary, again nothing I could disagree with.

To be honest it's pretty common sense the ruling.

"the way that they present": surely that means some attempt at looking stereotypically feminine - eg long hair and women's style clothes? Not just some random man going into the Ladies because he likes intimidating women and knows that they can't challenge him?

I agree with that but I would argue that no one’s privacy and dignity is being violated by private closed cubicles.

And where those are available - great!

Changing rooms and toilets are usually not individual lockable cubicles though, and excluding TW from the female facilities is perfectly legitimate.

“Trans people should be generally accommodated the way that they present.”

Why?

The Times Senior Sports Correspondant reported that Emily Bridges could raise an action for being discriminated against. When it was pointed out to him that there are exemptions in the Equality Act which legally exclude even those with a GRC from single sex sports, he admitted he had simply taken the incorrect advice given by a captured organisation and hadn't verified that it was correct.

What an astonishing turn of events

Also there are many circumstances which do not need to be single sex, and in those circumstances MTF trans people can easily be "accommodated in the way they present".

@DomesticatedZombie

“Trans people should be generally accommodated the way that they present.”

Why?

To be nice, polite, I think. I hope she means as they go to work, walk down the street, take on the daily round.

Like most people would anyway

Exactly.

Good question.

Because some people have a medical condition which means they need to change aspects of their physical sex and live and be accepted within the socially organised aspects of that sex to be able to function and be well. (With some limits).

Yes, those limits are the issue, aren't they?

Why do you think most transactivists are so angry about these reasonable, common sense guidelines, FOGC?