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...

Funny nothing from Stonewall, Mermaids, LGBT Foundation, Gendered Intelligence...

@LangClegsInSpace I'm arguing that the ECHR's statement is simply not true.

"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."

Legal sex is defined exactly as I quoted above. "Biological sex" is not mentioned, and this is at the very least an overreach.

Does this guidance confirm this is unlawful? If so as I say I imagine loads of workplaces are breaching the regulations. Who is responsible for enforcing this?

It's arguably unlawful because it isn't governed by the Equality Act, but health and safety in the workplace law.

On the whole, not bad. Quite confused by the thing about you don't require a GRC, and you can't be questioned about it either. Gives carte blanche for any bloke to walk straight on into women's spaces and women will be afraid to question it.

BUT, good working examples of what legitimate aims look like, and that's it's not on a case by case basis, and indeed, women's services, groups and spaces, can exclude.

So Women's Aid, for example, is a good example of this. They've consulted, confirmed that they are committed to single sex spaces but also happy to signpost other services and provide support as well. Didn't stop the tantrums, but that's to be expected.

It also hasn't stopped the latest line of tantrumming, and declarations from individuals that they'll straight up ignore the guidance and do what they want. But hopefully it will give organisations a bit of backbone not to back down, and that as long as you are fair, it's ok to say no to the demands of males, even if they whine at you.

@DERFDogmaExlusionary

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

Playing devil's advocate here. Where would a transwoman (specifically a transsexual person) be placed on a hospital ward if they'd had surgery, had feminine secondary sex characteristics but had no GRC.

You couldn't put them in a female ward because they're biologically men and have no GRC to be legally classed as female.

You couldn't put them in a male ward because of their privacy, decency and preventing their trauma.

There's still too many loopholes which need closing.

It was a first tier tribunal so not a precedent and didn't actually rule that anyway.

Whilst Taylor v JLR was a first tier tribunal, I'm pretty sure it did find that NB and gender fluid falls within the category of gender reassignment:

This case is important as it is the first case in which the Tribunal has held that a person that identifies as gender fluid or non-binary falls within the definition at section 7 of the EqA. The Tribunal held that Ms Taylor was covered by the definition and accordingly the way she had been treated amounted to discrimination.

www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogsite/gender-reassignment-taylor-v-jaguar-land-rover-limited-et/

It seems to me that what they are saying is that there is a level of parity between all trans people with or without a GRC. You can ask about their biological sex in order to make your decision about eligibility, but you can’t ask whether they have gone the extra step of getting a GRC.

And you don’t need to ask about a GRC because it doesn’t matter anyway because GRC or not, it is reasonable to exclude people on the basis of sex in order to provide a single sex space.

To me it seems to be limiting the GRC back to towards the intended purpose which was as an administrative workaround for certain particular circumstances like marriage which at the time of the GRA could not accommodate same sex marriage.

Willoughby. Resign you Nazis

DadJoke, I love the way you think you are cleverer than the government lawyers, who undoubtedly went over the statement you deem 'simply untrue' with a fine tooth comb and a trained legal eye, all the kudos to you for self esteem. Can you please share how you've managed to achieve, it's truly inspiring!

Sigh.

"Other people have rights too, and needs must be balanced so that everyone has accessible services"

"You bunch of Nazis!"

Honestly. Go read about the bloody Nazis, because I really don't think you have one fucking clue.

[quote DadJoke]@LangClegsInSpace I'm arguing that the ECHR's statement is simply not true.

"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."

Legal sex is defined exactly as I quoted above. "Biological sex" is not mentioned, and this is at the very least an overreach.[/quote]
Yeah the problem with this is that services will be following the carefully researched and planned and published ECHR's guidance.

Not yours.

[quote DadJoke]@LangClegsInSpace I'm arguing that the ECHR's statement is simply not true.

"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."

Legal sex is defined exactly as I quoted above. "Biological sex" is not mentioned, and this is at the very least an overreach.[/quote]
Terms that are not defined in legislation are interpreted as having their ordinary, everyday meaning.

So for male and female, the term 'biological sex' is a reasonable interpretation.

At the start of the document, EHRC say, 'We have used plain English to help explain legal terms. This does not change the meaning of the law.'

I notice nobody's getting upset that they are using 'trans' instead of 'transsexual'.

To me it seems to be limiting the GRC back to towards the intended purpose which was as an administrative workaround for certain particular circumstances like marriage which at the time of the GRA could not accommodate same sex marriage.

It would be an improvement if this were true. Although a man wouldn't need to be issued with a female birth certificate for an administrative workaround.

This case is important as it is the first case in which the Tribunal has held that a person that identifies as gender fluid or non-binary falls within the definition at section 7 of the EqA

This person was clearly MTF despite it being claimed that they were "non binary". The EA was never intended to include "gender fluid or non binary people" in the way we understand it now. They are not "transsexual". IMO the tribunal got this wrong, and as pp said it isn't binding. I agree that it might influence the arguments in other cases though.

Sounds great. Look forward to reading. Keen to know what this means for workplaces too.
Does this guidance significantly change the context around the GRA?

@littlbrowndog

Willoughby. Resign you Nazis

Good grief: I (mistakenly) thought you'd paraphrased IW rather than quoted. You'd think I'd know better.

It sounds like it will help organisations that want to remain single sex, but it’s not going to help with anywhere that’s already been ideologically captured.

For example, from what I understand, Girl Guides can still claim to be single-sex and let people with a GRC in. I was hoping it would be clearer, so they would have to publicly rescind their single sex status. It sounds like they can still let in anyone who feels like it too, not just GRC holders.

That’s true, Don’tAsk, but now they will have to clarify that this is their own decision, not the law, and explain why they don’t believe it’s legitimate and proportionate to exclude males from little girls’ overnight residentials.

Good luck to them.

For example, from what I understand, Girl Guides can still claim to be single-sex and let people with a GRC in.

Yes maybe, but the case for letting other male people in and still being considered a single sex group for girls is much more flimsy, because they can only exclude any male people at all due to the single sex exemptions. But I think it would have to go to court.

There’s a foxy lawyer backing up on his promise to challenge this new guidance in court.

@tabbycatstripy

There’s a foxy lawyer backing up on his promise to challenge this new guidance in court.

Given his win record, this is quite good news.

The BBC is alleging that the EHRC is making up the examples from thin air. How do I complain?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60983982

@littlbrowndog

Willoughby. Resign you Nazis

That's a step up from the earlier threat of getting naked and weeing with the door open in the ladies.

That's a step up from the earlier threat of getting naked and weeing with the door open in the ladies.

Yeah. Had a toddler that used to take off their clothes and threaten to wee when thwarted. I think the next bit is heels drumming, breath holding and smearing poo.

The guidance is covered in the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/04/trans-women-can-excluded-changing-rooms-toilets/

Sex Matters is quoted:

"The long-awaited guidance on the impact of equality law has been welcomed by women’s rights campaign groups, including Sex Matters, who described it as a “positive” and “welcome” step.

“It recognises that people wanting single-sex services for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety or trauma have legitimate needs,” the group said. “It doesn’t call them bigots or transphobes, or accuse them of ignorance or bigotry.”"