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...

By my reading s7 is the description of the protected characteristic and doesn't impose any obligations by itself other than if you ignore it or, for example, misdescribe it by calling it 'gender identity' instead.

This would not be the first time of hoping that by saying documentation says something it doesn't loudly and often other people will be too stupid and lazy to go and check.

Selective realities again.

No. Doesn't work. Law has to work on facts, shared meaning and objective not personal reality.

@EvilGoldfish

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.

Some women have a medical condition called PTSD brought on by the oppression experienced because of their female bodies. Their needs matter too. Even when this medical condition means they need female only spaces to be able to function well. This poster's misogyny is showing I'm afraid.

Quite.

Either everyone equally needs to 'reframe their trauma' and 'overcome their bias' and shut up/put up/abandon their faith/put the needs of others nobly above their own and self exclude if they can't...

or no one does.

Pick one.

Trans legal project have a blog disagreeing with Karen monoghan's thread.
Their blog responding to the ehrc guidence itself is short on specifics, but this has some case law.
I just want to log it as a set if arguments. Apologies if it's already posted here.

www.translegalproject.org/post/karon-monaghan-s-take-on-the-new-ehrc-non-statutory-guidance-is-wrong

I am fascinated at the number of people that believe they know the act better than the EHRC does. And funnily enough all their conclusions are the same and equal 'females have no rights at all, especially to say no or escape from males'.

Yeah fuck off with that.

I am fascinated at the number of people that believe they know the act better than the EHRC does.
I know! If I have to make a decision about whether the way my organisation provides a service is lawful, who shall I believe on the equality act? An activist group, or the statutory body that was created by Parliament to uphold the Equality act?

OK it might be a good idea to consult specialist lawyers (especially if i'm a big organisation with funds) but I know where i would start.

If the argument coming out of the trans lobby is that women's sex based rights were entirely destroyed in 2010 by the Equality Act:

Where was the discussion of this in Hansard?

Where was this evidenced in the examples originally given?

Where is the evidence that this was the intention?

Or is this evidence of how every time this lobby get involved, law gets twisted and exploited and used in unforeseen ways to the disadvantage of other groups? Like the GRA?

Because this would damn certain help evidence that the GRA needs repealing and the answer is going to have to be watertight boundaries in words of one syllable. Because good will and permitting anyone else rights or kindness or anything at all is just not something the lobby seems capable of. And the law and policy will sadly have to reflect this.

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, evenonemale 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.

Well bloody said.

And excellent points Artichoke
They only want ‘to pee in peace’. Righto.

@Slothtoes

And excellent points Artichoke They only want ‘to pee in peace’. Righto.

In some instances this will be true. And I will stand behind any transwoman who is challenging any bigotry which is making it hard for her to pee in the male toilets. It's clearly not on to exclude her from the toilets designed for her sex-class.

I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Nobody had said anything about wanting to exclude men (however they feel about themselves or they dress) from men’s toilets. Quite the opposite. All men should be welcome in male facilities. Whatever they wear, etc.

Ttans legal project wrote a complaint about this guidence to ehrc.
Ehrc's reply is linked here.
mobile.twitter.com/TransLegalProj/status/1546595000657518594

Ehrc sets out their position, interestingly they use extracts from the aea judicial review to back them up.

And they say they are re visiting the statutory code practice to update it with case law.

Thanks for that Manderleyagain.

I’ve read the exchange of correspondence and the new letter. I am slightly confused by their arguments - there is much talk of being excluded from spaces due to being trans, but surely in the case of female single sex spaces, transwomen are excluded on the grounds that they are male, not because they are trans.

@NothingTraLaLa If you look at the judicial review of the Scottish government's equal representation Bill that was ruled illegal because it included trans women(biological males) yet excluded trans men (biological females).
Both the EHRC and the judge made it perfectly clear that trans women are not a protected characteristic and that no matter how anyone may identify or whether the person has or hasn't got a GRC when it comes to single sex exemption the correct comparison is with the persons biological sex not gender ie the correct comparison for transwomen is men/males and for transmen is with women/females so whilst it would be illegal to ban all trans people from a service/facility it is OK to ban all men/males including transwomen as they are men/males (sex class) but not transmen as they are women/females (sex class).
This is the clause that certain groups are willfully misrepresenting and twisting because it does say that excluding all trans people would be illegal however it is NOT illegal to exclude all males INCLUDING transwomen who are biological males. This last part is always ignored by trans groups as they refuse to accept that transwomen with or without a GRC will always be considered men/males when it comes to the protected characteristic of sex as it shows TWAW to be a falisy and specifically states that TWAM.
hope that helps even if it's a bit complicated.

I think it is all a confusing mess. Any service provider wanting to provide a single sex space will feel that they could be taken to court to prove that there was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim.

Proportionality could be subject to individual interpretation.

Ordinary people cannot function as legal specialists in day to day life.

Hoardasurass · Today 11:27

Thank you. That is so clear.

@NothingTraLaLa yes it is very disingenuous and wilfully obtuse. It clearly shows the extent that they are willing to go to in order to remove legal rights from women and why it was so important for the equity equality act 2010 to have specified that when it comes to the protected characteristic of sex that women means females of any age and men means males of any age.
This is also why trans groups are trying to call transwomen trans females now and transmen as trans males and why we must call out anyone and everyone who claims that they are trans females or trans males otherwise we lose all protection.

yes it is very disingenuous and wilfully obtuse. It clearly shows the extent that they are willing to go to in order to remove legal rights from women and why it was so important for the equity equality act 2010 to have specified that when it comes to the protected characteristic of sex that women means females of any age and men means males of any age.

This is also why trans groups are trying to call transwomen trans females now and transmen as trans males and why we must call out anyone and everyone who claims that they are trans females or trans males otherwise we lose all protection.

I had been muddled by the calling transwomen trans females and transmen as trans males, and thought a trans female meant a female who transitioned to a male gender identity and vice versa.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Sorry, that was to
Hoardasurass · Today 12:11
who was answering
NothingTraLaLa