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...

@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?

It's worth reading the whole thing.

EHRC are saying it makes no difference whether they have a GRC or not. They can be included or excluded, it's up to the service provider.

They can be excluded in the same way as male people with no GRC as long as it's is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Frankly now we're down to 'female privacy, dignity and exclusion is something only Nazis would consider' the end is in sight.

And it's not like we're having to do anything except sit back and let the evidence roll in.

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.

The Equality Act is not devolved and applies to the whole of the UK. That was the point of the case: the Scottish Parliament had no capacity to change the Equality Act. Only the UK Parliament can.

Lol Eresh, I hope EHRC got a few temps in to put together 'cleared lines' replies, which will politely explain to those lovely people that 'Stonewall law' is not, actually, the law. The level of argument on the other side would rarely require a senior civil servant involvement in addressing the issues raised, as is demonstrated by our local prospective complainer

Yes, but the definition of sex isn't laid out in the Equality Act which is the point of Dadjoke's gotcha argument, so the Scottish judgement must have drawn on earlier decisions.

The level of argument on the other side would rarely require a senior civil servant involvement in addressing the issues raised

well no.

@LangClegsInSpace

“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?”

It's worth reading the whole thing.

EHRC are saying it makes no difference whether they have a GRC or not. They can be included or excluded, it's up to the service provider.

They can be excluded in the same way as male people with no GRC as long as it's is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Thank you very much for explaining, I appreciate it. Yes, I shall get on and read the whole thing.

Surely then it is now clear that female sports cannot include males without a GRC and can exclude males with one.

I'm with you tabby, one by one we will address these issues. Not only are there no justification in including males on female wards, but in all the other areas they have managed to butt in over the recent years. 'And still she persisted'

Gosh, DadJoke, all your lovely insistence on this ridiculous verbiage put me in the gardening mood. Here's to the brave women without whom we'd not be where we are, £50 to Alison made me feel loads better!

Sorry, Allison

Seems good. The examples are helpful!

MNHQ
a post by me at 20:08 was deleted by you but was not as far as I knew any of the following:
personal attacks
posts that break the law, including hate speech of any kind
trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
trollhunting
spamming

I have simply been trying to understand something I find complicated. Please would you explain?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes, but the definition of sex isn't laid out in the Equality Act which is the point of Dadjoke's gotcha argument, so the Scottish judgement must have drawn on earlier decisions.

The definition is laid out in the Equality Act: man is a male of any age and woman is a female of any age.

It is customary and entirely accepted by the legal profession that terms that have a common meaning that is understood by people in the same way are not further defined (otherwise statutory writing would be an impossible undertaking - imagine having to define every single word!). At the time of writing the Equality Act (and now) this applied to the terms male and female.

The reason why man and woman were defined is because at the time of writing, a man with a GRC may have been understood as a woman legally. So for the purposes of the Equality Act the lawmakers clarified that the terms man and woman referred to sex, not legal status.

This is why the FWS judgement is so important, because it actually spells out and thus confirms that the Equality Act definition of sex is indeed a reference to biological sex.

For now and until it is superseded by a different higher court judgement, this is the authority on the question what the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act definition refers to.

@CharlieParley
It is customary and entirely accepted by the legal profession that terms that have a common meaning that is understood by people in the same way are not further defined (otherwise statutory writing would be an impossible undertaking - imagine having to define every single word!). At the time of writing the Equality Act (and now) this applied to the terms male and female.

In Scotland that case regarding the census,
that gender should not be on the form as being synonymous with sex, was lost even. Ar afte

Posted too soon.

….after the appeal. Didn’t that mean there can be lack of common understanding of words in law? ( At the time the census was first devised gender would never have meant natal sex but the judges ignored that.

But the point is it is not a legal precident - it holds no standing in other cases. It does not impact on how the law should be interpreted. Because it is only a first tier case. They were also deemed covered not because they were non binary but because they were perceived as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I understand that it’s not legal precedent, but it muddies the waters when it comes to those identifying as non binary or gender fluid.

Law firms were flagging this up as yet something else to be considered in the world of gender woo.

The foot-stamping tantrums going on on Twitter are genuinely something to behold.

MBM's response to the new guidance.

murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/04/04/mbm-response-to-ehrc-guidance-for-providers-of-separate-and-single-sex-services/?

As a woman with daughters and grand daughters I'm relieved at this clarification

The definition is laid out in the Equality Act: man is a male of any age and woman is a female of any age.

Apologies @CharlieParley I meant to write male and female aren't defined, not "sex".

@Waitwhat23

The foot-stamping tantrums going on on Twitter are genuinely something to behold.

It's quite something. There are suggestions and plans to construct some case law to prevent organisations from providing single sex services...

What kind of fucking monster reads guidance that says it's fine to provide single sex spaces for women who are rape or domestic abuse victims and thinks ''I'm not having that, I'm going to try my best to take that away from them.''

The reason whymanandwomanwere defined is because at the time of writing, a man with a GRC may have been understood as a woman legally. So for the purposes of the Equality Act the lawmakers clarified that the terms man and woman referred to sex, not legal status.

My understanding is more mundane than that - it prevents the need to write out 'women and girls' and 'men and boys' - hence woman is female of any age.

I think I've been most shocked by the NHS Trusts openly saying that they're just going to ignore the guidance. I mean, after it came to light about the rape of a woman on a 'single sex' ward who was then gaslighted by the NHS Trust, you'd think they'd at least have taken time to examine why single sex spaces are needed or shown any sort of empathy for women.

But no. Women apparently just don't matter.