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...

"Case by case" means the situation not the individuals. So 'prisons' or 'rape crisis centre' is the case - do prisons need to exclude TW in order to avoid discriminating again st women. If yes then that applies to all TW.

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

Yes please.

The Tory Government shouldn't be getting away with this shit, not a day longer.

In the Equality Act 2010, "man" is defined as "a male of any age"; and "woman" as "a female of any age". The other terms listed in the question are not defined, except that "the protected characteristic of sex" is defined in Section 11 of the Equality Act as a reference to a man or a woman, or to persons of the same sex, as appropriate.

There is no mention of "biological sex" anywhere in the Act.

This guidance restates that providers "can" provide single-sex spaces which exclude trans people, not that they "must". They are under no obligation to do so. The default is inclusion.

Unless or until organisations decide to set up a single-sex space, and it's challenged in court by a trans person, the scope of "legitimate" and "proportionate" will remain nebulous.

It's good that they've clarified the case by case issue. Because yes, it's not dependent upon what crime someone has committed, or if they pose a danger, you can exclude all men, however they identify. I mean you always could, but now it's really bloody clear.

Most of these examples were already in the equality act. To the exact wording.

I think the difference now is the extra endorsement of the EHRC.

The fact that in 2022 they are deeming it perfectly acceptable, not just legal, to exclude transwomen from all or any female spaces.

@LunaLights

Example: if women of a particular religion or belief will not use the local swimming pool at the same time as men, women-only swimming sessions could be provided as well as mainly-mixed sessions.

I just keep thinking that all those who chant TWAW will just say that TW are not men, so they cannot be excluded.

That will be repeated in the hope it continues to work.

However it's clear: it must be proportional and sex based.

This is the first time it's gone down officially that if women would not used a mixed sex facility that it is proportionate to exclude TW. Because otherwise you exclude females in need of service.

The answer to that so far has always been 'well fuck those females for having needs that present boundaries to this agenda, they can go without services'. This say no, they have rights too. Although I wish as well as lots of talk about it must be proportionate to impact upon TW's preferred choice of access there was an equal amount of talk about it must be proportionate to impact upon female people's preferred choice of access too. Both parties matter.

The obvious solution is that women only swims are created, some of which are trans inclusive and some of which are female only. Clear wording, boundaries and the word 'no' may be included if this is not respected.

No one has the faintest problem with seeing that TW need access to facilities. It's the dog in the manger 'no female provision can exist on principle because even though all my needs are met in a range of sensitive ways I just don't want females to have anything I can't control even if it means they get nothing' attitude that is absolutely unacceptable and needs a very firm hand.

Whilst this is encouraging, I don't think it solves the main issue we have seen over the last few years - that services can but do not have to use the exemptions (clarified today) in the Equality Act if they don't want to.

IIRC, the prison judicial review found that prison providers could use the exemptions if they chose, but they were not obligated to. And the prisons argued that they had appropriate risk assessments in place that meant they didn't need the exemptions.

How do we start challenging this in regards to institutions like NHS services and prisons? Is it just by demanding an appropriate equality impact assessment that uses the actual protected characteristics? (I.e sex not gender)

And at the bottom of that is the line we really need the govt et al to find their backbones and say:

Sex and gender are two different things.

No one changes sex. It is not possible.

Some things will be sex based.

And now we talk about the additional and diverse provisions that need to be created to meet the needs of those whose sex based provision is not yet sufficiently inclusive or who would prefer other spaces.

@InvisibleDragon

Whilst this is encouraging, I don't think it solves the main issue we have seen over the last few years - that services can but do not have to use the exemptions (clarified today) in the Equality Act if they don't want to.

IIRC, the prison judicial review found that prison providers could use the exemptions if they chose, but they were not obligated to. And the prisons argued that they had appropriate risk assessments in place that meant they didn't need the exemptions.

How do we start challenging this in regards to institutions like NHS services and prisons? Is it just by demanding an appropriate equality impact assessment that uses the actual protected characteristics? (I.e sex not gender)

Presumably evidence of women being raped and assaulted on women's wards with staff openly lying to the police to protect an abuser would be significant evidence of the harm ?

Unless or until organisations decide to set up a single-sex space, and it's challenged in court by a trans person, the scope of "legitimate" and "proportionate" will remain nebulous.

It's hardly nebulous when they give you umpteen examples in their guidance. And that privacy and dignity are indeed a proportionate reason.

🙄

I do think this will start to make a difference. It will take time (as it took time to write, it will take time to disseminate and create change). But this gives service providers little excuse not to engage with women about their policies and explain why they are choosing ‘inclusion’ and not using these guidelines instead. Once that happens the pressure to make changes will be much greater.

There is no mention of "biological sex" anywhere in the Act.

This is case law (thank you FWS!)

The other thing about this guidance is it applies to England, Wales, and Scotland.

I'm hopeful that some papers will start asking organisations for responses to this guidance. It's not beyond the imagination they might do so. They've got almost a week to do a decent Sunday news story on it.

This is a good point.

This is a very different place to where we were in as a society when the EqA2010 was written.

Now we have extensive evidence that this experiment does not work for all females and has caused harm, distress and exclusion

And that is in many ways down to the intolerance of the TQ+ lobby and their utter refusal to have the remotest care or interest in female humans beyond 'shut up, move over and give'. It's been tried. It doesn't work. It can't go on not working even if the current mess is to the TQ+ lobby's preference.

The other big issue I haven't seen addressed yet: the exceptions have often not been used due to intense pressure, lobbying and flat out bullying by the TQ+ lobby, making it extremely difficult (intentionally) for services to apply them where they need to to meet the needs of female people. Funding is stripped from those who plan to meet the needs of female people and use the exceptions.

Come on govt, wake up to this. The 'no' is going to have to be said sooner or later, the woolly boundaries are just making things worse.

Have any trans people challenged any organisation excluding them on the basis of their sex? I don't recall anything

a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety.

This sums it up for me

@DadJoke

In the Equality Act 2010, "man" is defined as "a male of any age"; and "woman" as "a female of any age". The other terms listed in the question are not defined, except that "the protected characteristic of sex" is defined in Section 11 of the Equality Act as a reference to a man or a woman, or to persons of the same sex, as appropriate.

There is no mention of "biological sex" anywhere in the Act.

This guidance restates that providers "can" provide single-sex spaces which exclude trans people, not that they "must". They are under no obligation to do so. The default is inclusion.

Unless or until organisations decide to set up a single-sex space, and it's challenged in court by a trans person, the scope of "legitimate" and "proportionate" will remain nebulous.

I was just coming to mention that the main TRA twitter talking point seems to be that the 2010 Act doesn't explicitly mention that sex is biological. So glad you've already brought the argument here.

Could it be that 12 years ago when it was drafted nobody imagined this current shit show where people online pretend that there's no such thing as sex or biology? Twelve years ago hardly anyone would have interpreted sex as anything other than biological and in rare cases legal (GRC).

Or than being 'trans' means there is zero expectation that a person changes anything about themselves, not even their pronouns.

Or that men would adopt a Non Binary identity and decide to use female spaces because they feel like it that day.

‘Decency’ is a legitimate aim again. Good.

@Artichokeleaves - thanks for that explanation, that’s made it clearer to me.

I was just coming to mention that the main TRA twitter talking point seems to be that the 2010 Act doesn't explicitly mention that sex is biological. So glad you've already brought the argument here.

The judgement by the appeal court in the Forwomen Scotland Vs Scottush Government on the gender representation on public boards act rules that sex means biological sex. So that is settled.

If I understand this section if you are a trans women with a GRC your biological sex can be read in the document as your sex stated on your GRC. Which means transwomen with GRC can not be excluded from a female single sex space..

I'm hoping I have miss understood

This is their press release

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/guidance-published-providers-single-sex-services

@rogdmum

I’d like to know how they are defining “trans” as while they state that sex is binary in U.K. law, “trans” is an umbrella term. However, the EHRC hasn’t said who would be included within their use of that term.

From the EHRC document:

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.

But "gender reassignment" also covers a multitude of things.

@slightlysnippy

If I understand this section if you are a trans women with a GRC your biological sex can be read in the document as your sex stated on your GRC. Which means transwomen with GRC can not be excluded from a female single sex space..

I'm hoping I have miss understood

You can be excluded, if it's legitimate and proportionate, even if you have a GRC.

I agree @slightlysnippy and think it's still worrying. Given you can get a GRC for a fiver and having 'lived as your acquired gender' (whatever that means), men will just carry on accessing our spaces :-(

They shouldn't be ignoring the actual words used in the act; 'gender reassignment' is defined, using 'trans' widens that definition.