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...

@Lovelyricepudding

Jamie Wallis MP may be trans but is presenting as male gender so...???

Is he presenting as male gender? Do they define what the difference is between 'presenting as male gender' and 'presenting as female gender'? Is there a list of appropriate clothing and hairstyles for each category?

@bellinisurge

Good examples. Hope those evil sods at Edinburgh Rape Crisis read it.

Yep

@tabbycatstripy

‘However, the EHRC hasn’t said who would be included within their use of that term.’

Not sure it matters. Service providers can use the single sex exceptions and, if needed, also use the gender reassignment exceptions, so people of the sex you are excluding cannot access the service by invoking that protected characteristic.

I’m worried about definition creep. If the EHRC start using “trans” as the term to determine whether or not a person is protected via gender reassignment, that is going beyond TW/TM and potentially includes other gender identities, eg NB which are also often loosely held under the trans umbrella. The EHRC have previously said (for NB) that this needs clarification through legislation or the courts, so I’m concerned that they are themselves, potentially expanding who comes under gender reassignment. I think it would have been better for them to be more precise.

They seem to have drawn a distinction between being trans (don't assume, nothing to do with presentation) and being trans and presenting as a gender? So the decision to exclude is not based on if they are trans but rather how a trans person presents?

I still think men will be using women's toilets etc. It needed to be clearer on the bar set.

Has any one found a clear description of what a "legitimate aim" is. Or is this a generalised term that is arguable in court, if not specifically described in the examples given in the guideance? With regard to the idea of enforcement. Up until very recently everyone assumed single sex spaces were without controversy. Society ran fine without any enforcement. I don't think the idea of enforcement has any relevance. It is guideance on how we agree to all live together well. A social contract.

It seems to me like this all just illustrates the nonsense that is 'trans'.

Men can't be women and vice versa, gender reassignment should not be a protected characteristic in the EA2010 and there should be no such thing as Gender Recognition certificates.

By all means people can believe in gendered souls, wear whatever clothes they like and call themselves by whatever name, and there should be something in EA to protect people from discrimination based on the way they present, but to use the word gender in relation to this just causes problems.

Allison Bailey is concerned that there is a reliance on surveys and asking women for their objections before providing single sex services.

I agree with others that we need to go further than this guidance and there needs to be an obligation to consider whether the needs of specific groups have been met by provision, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

I suppose the main legitimate aim would be to enable women to access a service, or to have the same access as men.

I agree with others that we need to go further than this guidance and there needs to be an obligation to consider whether the needs of specific groups have been met by provision, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

For public sector organisations sureky this is covered by their Public Sector Equality Duty?

@tabbycatstripy

Allison Bailey is concerned that there is a reliance on surveys and asking women for their objections before providing single sex services.

I agree with others that we need to go further than this guidance and there needs to be an obligation to consider whether the needs of specific groups have been met by provision, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

I agree - a step in the right direction. Perhaps it goes as far as it can for now, clarifying the law, rather than changing it which requires more stamina.

@Lovelyricepudding

When might it be proportionate to exclude men but not transwomen? Surely if it is fine to let transwomen in then there is no reason to exclude other men?

Ladies hairdresser.

It might be, yes.

@JoodyBlue

Has any one found a clear description of what a "legitimate aim" is. Or is this a generalised term that is arguable in court, if not specifically described in the examples given in the guideance? With regard to the idea of enforcement. Up until very recently everyone assumed single sex spaces were without controversy. Society ran fine without any enforcement. I don't think the idea of enforcement has any relevance. It is guideance on how we agree to all live together well. A social contract.

It's a difficult one because even female spaces that don't involve nudity, trauma or physical contact are still useful due to how many men behave (whether deliberately or otherwise).

So if someone wants to set up a women's book group at the library they are probably doing so because a number of women feel more comfortable with that and men have a known tendency to dominate speaking time, even if they don't mean to.

So I think that example is a legitimate aim for that group to be single sex but I suspect the EHRC might not agree if a male whose identity was as a TW wanted to join.

Unless perhaps the library could prove that many women would leave the group or not join in the first place. As with other situations it's almost impossible to prove how many women self exclude from things.

Ladies hairdresser.

Ha, most hairdressers around here seem to cut men's hair too. It is the men''s barbers that exclude women.

@Lovelyricepudding

Jamie Wallis MP may be trans but is presenting as male gender so...???

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Seems to allow for the bearded men who like to say that they're lesbians now.

@OvaHere I agree with you.

It does not call for individual "case-by-case" assessment.

This is the biggie!

More than anything else, 'case by case' in the stat code has made the exceptions unworkable.

@Lovelyricepudding

Ladies hairdresser.

Ha, most hairdressers around here seem to cut men's hair too. It is the men''s barbers that exclude women.

Yes I tend to find that is the case too. Except for maybe mobile hairdressing. Women that work from clients homes have good reason to offer services to only one sex.

If we look to Canada though it's often these women that are targeted for discrimination cases.

Yes, I agree there is still some confusion.

All it takes is people well versed in how the loopholes get exploited (like we are) to see how these things are unworkable.

Also, again, how can you exclude a transwoman, if they have a female birth certificate?

How do you actually do it?

Also (my bold)

"Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs."

I haven't read it all, are they planning on reforming the gender recognition act?

@Lovelyricepudding

While I welcome any clarification of how to apply the law in practice, I am not sure that this goes far enough in protecting single sex spaces - as it states that it might be unlawful to exclude a TW who is presenting in the gender opposite to their sex from that opposite sex space/service

I agree

Me too - as female spaces exist so women don't have to share spaces with men and the guidance is clear than males cannot become the female sex, why is the onus not on orgs to carry out an impact assessment if they want to include transwomen. It seems backwards to me.

And yes about saying it shouldn't be defined by stereotypes, but it is.

I do remember one of the bits in the act said, for instance, boys on a stag night, aren't allowed to use the female toilets, by claiming they're women.

Well how does that work out?

Does anyone know if they are taking feedback?

Surely womens prisons can prove they need to provide single sex institutions for women, for their safety-yet their policy is to include males...

@happydappy2

Surely womens prisons can prove they need to provide single sex institutions for women, for their safety-yet their policy is to include males...

They seemed to be under the impression (or at least said they were) that they had to do the case by case basis thing.

Now the EHRC has cleared that up for them we should be seeing a policy change (won't hold my breath).

Perhaps this is what we should be writing to MPs about first, quoting the new guidance and asking them to get all males out of female prisons.

This page says why they say "trans":

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

"We have used plain English to help explain legal terms. This does not change the meaning of the law.
The Act uses the term ‘transsexual’ for individuals who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. We recognise that some people consider this term outdated, so in this guidance we use the term ‘trans’ to refer to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
We use the term ‘biological sex’ because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate."

(Note the "biological sex" part here is already being taken out of context in various TRA Twitter versions. Might be the next urban myth floating about)

And here is the big list of types of single sex services:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/when-you-can-provide-separate-or-single-sex-service

From that link, is this one about how to lawfully run a single sex service:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-provisions-equality-act

"(Schedule 3, para. 28)
If you have met the conditions set out above and have established a separate or single-sex service, you should consider your approach to trans people’s use of the service. In considering your approach and when taking decisions you must meet the conditions set out under the gender reassignment provisions.
Under these provisions, your approach must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This will depend upon the nature of the service and may link to the reason the separate or single-sex service is needed. For example, a legitimate aim could be the privacy and dignity of others. You must then show that your action is a proportionate way to achieve that aim. This requires that you balance the impact upon all service users.
Example: A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow trans women to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are likely to be traumatised by the presence of a person who is biologically male."

That link also covers the HSE and toilets, which was in the Sex Matters technical consultation response? And in the govt response?

I think this is pretty good but also solidly within what the law says.

No response from SW and co. Mostly they're focused on the conference - I think urging sponsors to pull out. Also busy adding in "non-binary" to things about the conference as well as to tweets about conversion therapy. Basically more shifting of language and morphing of aims.