Baroness Falkner: trans activists will not sway rules in their favour

[ResisterRex]

This in the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/08/equality-chief-trans-activists-will-not-sway-rules-women-only/

There must be an accompanying opinion piece which I'm trying to locate. But bits from the above are:

"In her first comments to a newspaper since publishing guidance stating that trans women can lawfully be excludedd from female-only spaces, Baroness Falkner of Margravinee said that her organisation had a duty to uphold the law independent of “campaign groups or vested interests”.
The chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said that it had published a clarification of the law this week as there needs to be a “balance””_ between “competing” rights.
“The law is clear that organisations can sometimes limit access to their services to one sex,” Lady Falknerr_ said.
The EHRC has been threatened with legal action since its advice was published on Tuesday, and bosses within the NHS and other organisations have vowed to ignore the guidance."

And:

"Lady Falkner, writing in The Telegraph, said: “We do not make the law, but it is our regulatory function to uphold it, independent of government, campaign groups or vested interests.”"

Part of the guidance - which simply restates the law as it's written and was voted on and passed by Parliament - says:

"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.
3 The level of need for the services makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex.
Example: a women-only support unit for women who have experienced domestic or sexual violence can be set up, even if there is no parallel men-only unit because of insufficient demand.
4 The service is provided at a hospital or other place, where users need special care, supervision or attention.
Example: single-sex wards in hospitals and nursing homes.
5 The service is likely to be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a man (or vice versa).
Example: separate male and female changing rooms.
6 A person might reasonably object to the service user being of the opposite sex because the service involves physical contact.
Example: sports sessions involving a high degree of physical contact or any service involving intimate personal health or hygiene.
You must also be able to show that providing the service on a single-sex basis is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Again, proportionality requires that you balance the impact on all service users of providing services only to one sex."

But got it. Services for women of faith, victims of rape and domestic violence, men and women in hospitals, and where people don't want to be naked in front of the opposite sex, are in fact "nonsense".

I hope the woman who posted about the rape crisis group (sarah I think she was called) is pursuing her case. I think it is really worth trying to establish that cases like this are indirect sex discrimination. She was asking them to run one additional single sex group. She was not trying to completely change their service to female only. And there wasn't another service in her area. Their choice to say no was simply because of their belief that a woman is a person of either sex who says they are a woman. But that does not recognise the protected characteristic of sex as defined in the EA. If it was commissioned by a local authority I think they are discriminating against service users who need female only, and not taking the pc if sex into account in their decision making.

You can see why trans activists were so quick to "train" the judiciary with their preferred ideology. And so determined to keep top secret the substance of what these self identified experts told judges. I know Maya's been trying to get it shared but they've refused - almost as if there's something dodgy about it.
After all, we wouldn't want uncomfortable things like facts, science, let alone the rights of others and an accurate interpretation of the law to get in the way of Stonewall inspired bias and misinformation.

The interpreters and enforcers (except in very exceptional circumstances) are the judges and the tribunals. And they will be looking at the law and the Statutory Codes. Not this week's nonsense from the EHRC

'Nonsense'.

Dearie me.

We know who the "interpreters and enforcers" have been until recently.

@ShagMeRiggins

I agree with Rightsraptor that this is merely clarification (reiteration) of existing law.

Any official body pointing out that it is not against the law to provide single sex services is welcome, of course, but my God, how did we get to the point where single wax services are being framed as an abberation, and perceived as negative, in the first place?

tabbycatstripy rightly points out that it is legal to provide single sex services and legal to provide the same services to all.

So we are left with no directive that these services must provide—at the very least—a single sex option.

Many of you will remember our poster in the south of England who cannot get her rape crisis centre to offer even one single session that is single-sex for females, despite there being counselling groups for women and transwomen, and also single sex for males (which would include transwomen).

None of this helps that poster whatsoever. From what I’ve read, despite the guidance, organisations are still being left to decide for themselves, and most will choose to carry on as they were, being “inclusive”.

What needs to happen is a “must” instead of a “can” for provision.

This. The TRAs attacking this latest guidance is a distraction. What we need is organisations like rape crisis centres being told very clearly that it is illegal sex discrimination to provide a variety of services (3 different groips!!) that a trans individual can agtend, but nothing for the traumatised female tape victim who needs a safe space from men.

Charities that don’t carry out their function should lose their funding and tax privileges. A rape crisis centre that prioritises political grandstanding for trans activists m over the emotional needs of a rape victim should lose its funding.

Robin Moira White: 'Some elements of society, including so-called ‘gender critical’ feminists, would have trans rights rolled back or restricted.' In this article www.legal500.com/fivehundred-magazine/the-bar/being-trans-in-law/

BBC reporting on Maya Forstater EAT, June 2021: 'Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury said her "gender-critical beliefs" did fall under the Equalities Act as they "did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons".'

Yeah, it's the judges who interpret and enforce the law, not 'female' barristers who've built up their recent practice misinterpreting the law. The tide is turning, it must be fucking terrifying for some people who're on record saying all kind of rubbish in the national press.

And they will be looking at the law and the Statutory Codes. Not this week's nonsense from the EHRC.

Out of interest, which parts of the guidance do you think is nonsense?
Do you think any of it is reasonable?

Hi Robin, I asked you a question some time ago but never got an answer. Here it is again.
Do you believe that women have no rights to single sex facilities and or services?

Manderley, I was also thinking of that poor woman and agree, that's one of the most egregious examples of 'getting ahead of the law' and removing single-sex options for women entirely.

I guess her council followed Stonewall guidance that advised removal of single-sex exceptions, in spite of that specific case being used as an example (as MPs are not actually that evil as to force rape survivors to describe their experiences in male presence in therapy). Stonewall campaigned and failed to remove the exceptions, but went ahead and advised everyone for years 'to get ahead of the law'. Now that's being challenged.

However, I look forward to Stonewall defending their power- drunk, puritanical zealotry at the end of the month in Allison Bailey case, ably assisted by our esteemed visitor, on camera. I'm sure we'll all be smitten by the argument, and promptly recant.

As to Sarah, I do believe she should contact EHRC for advice and guidance, as I doubt her council is compliant with the new non-statutory guidelines, but would totally understand if she didn't want to pursue the case, she's had quite enough to deal with

I would rather the test case was something less horrific for the claimant, and unfortunately am sure there will be further cases coming up, as some males seem to insist on using our spaces EVEN when mixed-sex options are available AND we tell them it's fucking terrifying for us, because their feelings are more important than ours.

So, another drive by plop by some posters. They never stick around to discuss their plopped posts just like telling us we are wrong.

How wonderful for us that there are some amazing legal people involved in supporting women’s rights. Like the women running the legal feminist site which does great book reviews on a book about the law and trans people that pointed out deficiencies in the book.

Many of those legal professionals also tend to explain where guidance etc are being misinterpreted.

I will continue to read their opinions, rather than a poster who randomly plops down admonishing posts and continues to fail to engage. Particularly since they have dodged answering a question posted now on at least two or three threads they were on. It is almost like some posters have forgotten that readers who are reading along notice the questions left untouched and begin to wonder why they are left unanswered time and time again.

I find it interesting how trans activists, many of them just random loons with anime avatars on Twitter,
think they know equalities law better than the EHRC.

It’s tempting to speculate that if you’re immersed in a fantasy where “I am a woman” is true by virtue of simply saying it, then it’s a small step to add “the law is whatever I say it is” to the rules of the fantasy world you’re living in. Unfortunately all fantasies have to collide with reality eventually.

I hope the EHRC are preparing to make the guidance statutory.

Helleof, they fail to engage because they think there are smarter than us.

That slur I quoted earlier 'Some elements of society, including so-called ‘gender critical’ feminists, would have trans rights rolled back or restricted.' is directly followed by 'This is silly'

There, denizens of FWR, this (former) penis-haver has spoken, there is no reason, for further engagement.

I shall now start the day with 'Oh Lord, give me the confidence of a mediocre white (former penis haver)'.

Can lawyers, like, go around slurring people with protected belief, or is this unusual?

Robin, why are you so very keen to compel unwilling women to provide male people with their presence? It’s not remotely kind and suggests that you do not or cannot listen.

Please don’t give us the guff about transwomen being female; they are male. You know that, even if you don’t wish to say it.

Absursdle, it's not just 'random loons with anime avatars on Twitter', there is an UK barrister specialising in employment law doing exactly that, on this very thread.

IsItShining, Robin calls themselves 'female barrister', so doesn't appear to know that Robin is male, no, sadly.

In spite of being born one and living as a man for the vast majority of Robin's life, Robin identities as female. IKR?

I wonder if @RobinMoiraWhite also told off the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee for using this wording 'The Commission does have a role as a regulator and enforcer.', or is it just the Mumsnet users that get told they are wrong for using this terminology? (see here https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8329/documents/84728/default/)

Are they ever going to come back, or is it us told?