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...

@Datun and @TheAbbotOfUnreason
Thank you

@WeeBisom

Catherina, could you explain why you think it violates S.7 of the equality act ? S.7 pertains to the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people with and without GRCs have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Sex is a separate characteristic from gender reassignment and the two can come apart.

This isn’t a specific criticism of you , by the way, but I’ve noticed a lot of people say this guidance is illegal or faulty without actually explaining why that is.

I had that with another poster who stated that a certain paragraph in the Declaration of Human Rights meant that we had to use pronouns when referring to transpeople. Complete nonsense of course. I wonder if they assume we won't look things up if they say 'well that's found in .... of the ....'

@WeeBisom

Catherina, could you explain why you think it violates S.7 of the equality act ? S.7 pertains to the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people with and without GRCs have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Sex is a separate characteristic from gender reassignment and the two can come apart.

This isn’t a specific criticism of you , by the way, but I’ve noticed a lot of people say this guidance is illegal or faulty without actually explaining why that is.

here are a couple of links

www.personneltoday.com/hr/ehrc-single-sex-spaces-guidance-could-lead-employers-into-unlawfulness/

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/04/04/ehrc-guidance-single-sex-trans/

The guidance makes multiple references to biological sex, “because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate”. The phrase biological sex does not appear in the Equality Act.

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis

In reality companies will adapt with single sex spaces and a unisex option for trans. It is most likely to become very wide spread, and it gives women the right to challenge a man in the ladies and ask for him to be removed. It is well overdue.

Those companies that do not offer space spaces to women can see their profits plunge as we vote with our feet and choose retailers, restaurants etc that take our safety and dignity seriously. Market forces will be the strongest motivator.

A blanket ban on trans people when it is proportionate and in the interests of the female people the service was set up for to do so. And when it would exclude or affect access for those female people to make it a mixed sex service.

Providing additional options for those trans people.

Fgs what's the prob?

Actually I doubt it ever would be a blanket ban on trans people - a blanket ban on male people, yes.

WHEN their inclusion negatively impacts on the female people that service is for.

The problem seems to be that women can't be forced to share single sex spaces when they are undressed and vulnerable and MRA's seem to think we should be forced to and are encouraging each other to ignore both the EQA2010 and the supporting guidance from EHRC.

It's incredibly creepy.

So the two links above. One written by a TW with a vested interest and the other from pink news. I see. So no credible sources then.

@Waitwhat23

The problem seems to be that women can't be forced to share single sex spaces when they are undressed and vulnerable and MRA's seem to think we should be forced to and are encouraging each other to ignore both the EQA2010 and the supporting guidance from EHRC.

It's incredibly creepy.

And some of the most high-profile and strident MRAs are women, including in some positions in the NHS where they have some power.

There is a strong need for their Patient and Public Advisory Groups (or whatever they're called) to mandate a heterodox member or somebody charged with that responsibility so that it's not viable to mandate shibboleth for recruitment criteria.

But what about workplaces where people can't just vote with their feet if single sex facilities are not provides?

@Eelicks

But what about workplaces where people can't just vote with their feet if single sex facilities are not provides?

Quite.

Excluding females to include males is obviously unacceptable to a rational person.

The obvious answer is mixed sex options for those who would like to use them, plus single sex provision.

The rage about inclusion meaning everyone, and females being treated with equal consideration, tells you everything you need to know.

The guidance makes multiple references to biological sex, “because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate”. The phrase biological sex does not appear in the Equality Act.

Once again, the judgement in FWS v Lord Advocate of Scotland is the current authority on this question. It states unequivocally that sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The judges arrived at this ruling by carefully considering the definition of sex in the Equality Act itself (which was after all one of the main issues in this case.)

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

1. Males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are not banned from toilets provided for males and females with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are not banned from toilets provided for females in this example. This claim is false.

1. The statutory code refers to case-by-case but the interpretation that this means user-by-user rather than use case-by-use case does not stem from the statutory code but from trans rights campaigners.

Both the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC have clarified that the correct interpretation is use case-by-use case. User-by-user would not, after all, be workable.

Thought this was relevant

Thanks for replying Catherina. None of the articles you posted mentioned s.7 of the equality act, so I’m still none the wiser why you think the guidance is clearly illegal as it clashes with s.7. I really can’t see how it conflicts at all. I was just curious why you thought that, because so far I’ve seen a lot of upset about this advice but very little discussion about why it’s so horribly wrong.

Also the complaint that “the act doesn’t mention biological sex” is not a very strong one. The act defines woman as a “female”. Case law has established that “female” is a concept which refers to biological sex. So… it appears the guidance is perfectly correct. What else would “female” refer to if not the concept of biological sex? And what on earth is the purpose of “single sex exemptions” if the act is not discussing biological sex?

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

What a crazy mis-reading of the Act! Transwomen are men - that's what the trans bit means. There is no justification in the act for excluding a man from men's provisions and neither should there be. If this is the nonsense that is being peddled and no-one in the TRA movement can see that this is nonsense, it does not speak well to their powers of thinking.

@Fieldofgreycorn

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).

Females as resources for men again.

It's so clear.

This has been very illuminating.

As a PP said, they're not seeking equality they're wanting male privilege over women, and women shouldn't be allowed to say no what men want.

They can call it a medical condition that means they need to be "accepted within the socially organised aspects of that sex'. It's not what I call it.

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

Yes. That’s what “case-by-case” means. It doesn’t mean on an individual-by-individual basis.

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).

I thought the push in the last few years was that trans was NOT a medical condition. It’s a state of being, sometimes shifting like the sands, sometime immutable.

That’s why we’ve been told it doesn’t matter if a man only identified as woman for a few days, for those days he IS a literal woman. It also apparently does not matter if a person has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria anymore.

The toilet example suggests that a service could effectively institute a blanket ban on trans people. The EHRC’s own Codes of Practice on the Equality Act say that such policies should be applied “on a case-by-case basis”.

It keeps on coming back to "case by case" doesn't it?

TRAs use it to suggest women want to be Genital Police. To say that ia blanket ban is unfair.

Actually @CatherinaJTV and others, a blanket ban by an individual organisation, that has defined its reasoning, is entirely legal, proportionate and fair to its user base.

The case is the individual organisation and its specific situation. NOT an individual person. So, as I explained to RMW (not they they replied) the charity I work for decided no men, including transwomen, ever. We are a DV refuge, a crisis centre. The convoluted thinking, persistent lies by TRAs has lost us a lot of funding, reduced our services - and that includes associated services that support men, transwomen included. THAT @CatherinaJTV is what thinking and proselytising like yours does to women. It benefits no trans person and does harm to vulnerable women, men, trans people alike.

I hope the thought of that gives you pause... though I doubt it will!

What do TRAs imagine an individual by individual ban would entail?

Three transwomen wanting to join a female only swim say. Standing at reception. How does the receptionist decide?

Is it looks? Surgery? Tone of voice?

What do they want the criteria to be.

@CatherinaJTV any ideas? Even one?

‘ 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.’

People have rights to appropriate MEDICAL treatment when they are ill. They don’t have rights to social acceptance by a group of people. That isn’t something the law can mandate, unfortunately.

‘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.’

Women are not compelled to consent though.

That is in total violation of section 7 of the EA2010 though, so I can't see this stand up to challenge.

Explain how? I'm not interested in your TRA blogs, but I'd like you to explain how that is the case. You aren't a lawyer, are you?

We've been repeatedly told it's not a medical condition. (But health care must be provided.)

Look. It's been tried. It's been a complete mess. It does not work for female people. It is impossible to make it some males and not all males. And anyway, even one male will, regardless of how that male person identifies and what a lovely person they are, still exclude some females by their presence from needed female provision.

Sex does not change. It does not go away. Female people cannot overlook this in every circumstance. Some facilities and resources must be for female people only, to meet female need, and male feelings don't get to override their needs being met and females being able to have services too.

Male people with a problem with this are just going to have to figure out that not everything is for them and not everything is about them all the time, and if their needs are met they need to let other people's needs be met too. And not expect to control and gatekeep female people's lives, services, resources to meet their own personal needs.

That is in total violation of section 7 of the EA2010

Equality Act s7

7Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.