Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

EHRC single sex guidance out

471 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 04/04/2022 11:19

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...

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 04/04/2022 19:00

@Ereshkigalangcleg

A Stonewall spokesperson said: "Far from clarifying how the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act should be used, the EHRC's latest non-statutory guidance is likely to create more confusion.

I love the way they emphasise "non-statutory" when in the past TRAs said the previous guidance had more weight than the wording of the EA itself.

Quite. It's only likely to create confusion in those who failed to carry out due diligence and allowed themselves to be persuaded to adopt the Stonewall perspective and move ahead of the law…
LK1972 · 04/04/2022 19:01

'If you can point to where it says biological sex in EA it'll be the end of the matter' (paraphrasing). Which 'matter' would that be, would you agree men should stop trying to access female-only spaces 'coz they 'feel like women', whatever the fuck's that supposed to mean? Or do you mean you'll leave women on this thread alone and stop posting pointless sophistry?

GibbonsGoatsGibbons · 04/04/2022 19:03

This sounds positive but I don't understand how it can work in real life when forms of ID via self declaration.
big beardy bloke walks into the women's changing room, gets told it is single sex & redirected to the men's - he produces his self id driving license....

They need to close the loopholes

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/04/2022 19:08

They need to close the loopholes

Agree. Passports and driving licences should need a GRC at least. but the GRA should obviously be repealed as it's the ultimate loophole

LangClegsInSpace · 04/04/2022 19:11

They haven't outlawed eyes ...

ScrollingLeaves · 04/04/2022 19:14

I have not read it all yet but got to here: Under the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ is understood as binary, being a man or a woman. For the purposes of the Act, a person’s legal sex is their biological sex as recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate. A trans person who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for the purposes of the Act.

Please would anyone clarify this statement for me. It says that legal ‘sex’ is binary, biologically male or female; but it also says it sex is decided by a ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’ which is not biological at all.

Therefore, as far as I can interpret this, there can in practice be no single biological sex exemptions - (except for under 18s who cannot get a GRC?) Am I right?

Also, at the start it begins by saying the Act uses the term ‘transsexual’ but here the term ‘trans’ would be used as transsexual is considered an outdated word. But I thought these words did not mean the same, in that transsexual might refer to someone like Jan Morris who has undergone many operations so as to be as much like a biological woman as possible whereas ‘trans’could cover many presentations some of which, for example, could be simply apply to a cross dressing person or even a change of name.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 04/04/2022 19:19

@LangClegsInSpace

They haven't outlawed eyes ...
getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e113557b-237c-4836-b969-dd38ca6fb0ff

And Iris Child's poem comes to mind.

what if all the legal courts
say I can be in your sports?

what if laws are made for me
stopping you from stopping me?

what if a panel all agreed
gave me the paper I said I need? [cont]
…

bellinisurge · 04/04/2022 19:25

One extremely good thing is that the non-binary/gender fluid bullshit is just that in law. The desperate attempt to cram completely bog-standard non-conforming self expression under some sort of umbrella to boost the numbers. You don't get to be a special flower protected in law as non-binary just because you have a pair of Dr Martens and cropped hair.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 04/04/2022 19:33

@ScreamingMeMe

TRAs having a normal one.
And I hope they'd both be arrested for the hate crime this would represent.
pombear · 04/04/2022 19:33

Encouraging development.

And whatever the next step needed, regarding loopholes, the Code of Practice, etc, this evening is a fascinating watch of the responses to this from many trans activists.

As Akua Reindorf says, the guidance is to help any organisation that provides services like toilets, changing rooms, refuges or hospital wards to understand the law and balance everybody’s rights

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

The sheer rage this evening of so many males from being told 'no' for the reasons above. I've yet to see any of them pay any nod to the needs that females may have, as listed above.

Even in some 40-plus tweet threads, not one nod to the needs of a specific group of people that aren't them.

Shouts of 'Nazi', 'authoritarian' and even a ""feelings of dignity & safety" = bigotry in this context."

No empathy, no compassion, no thought for women. (No surprise, but useful to see it writ large this evening).

Privacy, dignity, safety, trauma prevention and health and safety.

Means nothing to some men, if they aren't given what they want, regardless of others' needs.

Hopefully even more people who were sitting on the fence, hoping to equivocate a little longer, will see the aggressive response to this guidance, and realise what's really going on.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 04/04/2022 19:36

@ChristinaXYZ

Why are people employed at tax payers expense in the NHS allowed to take their political views to work

twitter.com/SAMcKenna1/status/1511015654022782980

"This guidance will not be forming part of my teams advice" says Stuart McKenna (He/Him) "Senior HR Professional, NHS; former clinical cytogeneticist....Trans and Non-Binary Ally....views are my own"

His views are is own and he is entitled to have them but that freedom should start to get curtailed at work where your actions and words start to impact other people, not in a hurt feelings kind of way, but in a practical safe-guarding way. He is not just saying he does not agree but that his actions at work - in the NHS! - will be political.

This makes me so angry.

Goaded on by this lot

twitter.com/TransNHS/status/1511004538936963073

And Em Wraw (she/her) also an NHS employee jumps in with a reminder about the Annex B provision that mean women's rights mean nothing.

"Quick reminder to NHS colleagues that the NHS England guidance on Delivering Same Sex accomodation (2019) remains in force, including Annexe B - single sex wards in the NHS are trans-inclusive"

twitter.com/emwraw/status/1511023126053855233

Em Wraw (she/her) is helpfully pointing out that until the government make it the law that women have to be given single sex spaces in all the places we keep mentioning then women will not get single sex spaces.

Not as long as Em Wraw (she/her) and Stuart McKenna (He/Him) are employed by the NHS.

I particularly like the capitalisation of McKenna's pronouns - suggestive perhaps of a God complex.

I work for the NHS and I could not agree more @ChristinaXYZ

It is not up to them to choose to implement policies which exclude a large swathe of women and are against our equality laws. Sadly there are a lot of anti-women men and women in senior positions in the NHS as much as in other organisations.

DadJoke · 04/04/2022 19:40

@LK1972

'If you can point to where it says biological sex in EA it'll be the end of the matter' (paraphrasing). Which 'matter' would that be, would you agree men should stop trying to access female-only spaces 'coz they 'feel like women', whatever the fuck's that supposed to mean? Or do you mean you'll leave women on this thread alone and stop posting pointless sophistry?
The matter of whether EHRC are correct when they say the EA2010 refers to biological sex. That’s it.
ScrollingLeaves · 04/04/2022 19:42

Please would some one tell me this:

Can a person with a GRC be allowed into an otherwise sex segregated space regardless of the fact that they are physically the opposite sex?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/04/2022 19:43

They haven't outlawed eyes ..

Don't give them ideas.

Lovelyricepudding · 04/04/2022 19:45

Legally, if you are treated differently as a result of a protected characteristic, that's, by default, discrimination. But there are legal exceptions: these are listed in the EA for trans people, and their exclusion must be legitimate and proportionate. If it turns out otherwise, it's discrimination.

Exactly - a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (a transwoman) should not be treated differently from men without this protected characteristic

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/04/2022 19:45

Can a person with a GRC be allowed into an otherwise sex segregated space regardless of the fact that they are physically the opposite sex?

Yes, they don't necessarily need a GRC, the onus is on the service/space provider to make and enforce the rules.

Lovelyricepudding · 04/04/2022 19:47

The matter of whether EHRC are correct when they say the EA2010 refers to biological sex. That’s it.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the appeal court has confirmed this.

LK1972 · 04/04/2022 19:48

DadJoke-who cares? If you're that bothered please raise it directly with EHRC, I'm sure there's a contact for complaints on their website. I personally would be highly grateful if you then come back and post their reply, there's not enough entertainment on these threads

Truthlikeness · 04/04/2022 19:50

@ScrollingLeaves

Please would some one tell me this:

Can a person with a GRC be allowed into an otherwise sex segregated space regardless of the fact that they are physically the opposite sex?

They can be allowed into it, but equally they can be denied if it is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. I think it's a backwards way of framing, but it's were we are.

"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."

tabbycatstripy · 04/04/2022 19:54

One by one, we’ll address the issues in this area. There is no justification for accommodating males on single sex hospital wards, and that practice will fall by the wayside as politicians realise that we’re not having it, and we stop voting for them, and people like Stuart are corrected.

LK1972 · 04/04/2022 19:55

Maybe DadJoke is not satisfied with the Court of Appeal and is planning further action, but we silly wims are just not aware what this kind of legal eagle has in store for us

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/04/2022 19:56

The matter of whether EHRC are correct when they say the EA2010 refers to biological sex. That’s it.

Karon Monaghan QC in the quote I posted refers to the recent FWS appeal judgement - I'm not sure how it affects England, the law is different on many things but some legislation isn't devolved and this may apply to the overarching question of what defines sex?. She seems to think it's authoritative.

Also a reminder that the Gender Recognition Act is not called the Sex Recognition Act, so there is a delineation, GRCs are described "the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex becomes that of a man". So the legally fictive "sex" (not exactly the same legal status as the biological equivalent as some sex based exemptions exist) is gained by the act of obtaining a GRC.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/04/2022 19:57

Sorry meant to quote DadJoke in first paragraph.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/04/2022 20:00

If you're that bothered please raise it directly with EHRC, I'm sure there's a contact for complaints on their website

I expect they'll have quite a backlog to deal with from pleasant and polite people as we know will email them.

ScrollingLeaves · 04/04/2022 20:08

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.