Liz Truss letter to EHRC; spot the contradiction

[InTheCanteen]

The Conservative leadership election is giving women some opportunities to draw out the candidates on single sex spaces, services, sports and opportunities.

Frankly, I'm surprised this letter from February hasn't been more widely publicised up until now. I do hope Liz Truss can come up with a clear response: has she since changed her mind? Can she explain to us what she means by 'transgender people'?

twitter.com/TheAttagirls/status/1555514182493245445?s=20&t=mK96bvctJrsp2umZYK5r1A

Retweeted by Helen Joyce too.

would fail at the ‘proportionate’ hurdle of the Equality Act single sex provision.

Is this an overreach of the EqA, or people assuming the EqA applies to everything?

Why would a group of women who meet at church and hire or use church facilities have to follow the act? When does a friendship group become a service?

Surely the EqA applies to employment and the provision of goods and services. Not to make sure we only have single sex meetups with good reason.

So it's up to organisations to decide if they want to be single sex and transpeople can use the service of their choosing?

And why is Liz Truss asking that this reassurance is given to LGBT groups privately?

Totally. For example it would be absolutely fine for the FA to say that women can't play football, because it is their football club and their rules.

I don't think that's true.

I'm not an expert, but isn't the FA responsibility for most football in the country? Surely then they need to follow the EqA and ensure that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex? Unless a women's FA is established.

It would be odd if a church knitting group would be at risk of prosecution for not allowing men to join a knitting group, but the FA could stop women playing?

Well said

February was pre candidate race and she is clarifying government position

Re what’s legally allowed

I find the original tweet odd "Liz Truss must clarify this point about gender, otherwise I'm voting for Sunak who refused to state what a woman is".

It was well known that Truss was put in as equalities minister to kill of GRA reform and self-ID.

I have know doubt that Truss being so proactive and caring has killed those things so we can stop discussing them.

I'm confused, I thought we had agreed that anyone could have any club they liked? So the knitting church can exclude men and the ball chasers can exclude women.

What if a transperson chooses a single sex space? As we have repeatedly seen happen under the Conservative government. Hospital wards, Girl Guides, prisons etc?

People get to choose hospital wards?
Wow they are so lucky. Whenever DD is an inpatient it could be anyone from 18months to 18 in the next bed, and we are very happy to have the bed.

This is the whole point. Avowing to protect single sex spaces whilst telling trans people that they still get to choose is a nonsensical thing to say.
It's simply not possible.

Yes, but more recently Truss was decrying those who are willing to examine the UKs history and suggest that some parts of it we should not be proud of, whilst telling us that the same people think the UKs best days are behind us.

She is a walking talking contradictory nonsense.

She’s just referring to the legal position from the government

It is legal to determine single sex and in that case that’s what the space is

I'm confused, I thought we had agreed that anyone could have any club they liked? So the knitting church can exclude men and the ball chasers can exclude women.

Who agreed and when?

The difference is that the knitting group is often a group of people just meeting up, not providing employment or a service. The FA is part government funded, therefore providing a service. Surely under EqA the government should ensure that funding isn't being disproportionately given to men?

I actually think the litmus test of this whole thing - when we’ll see women treated with basic respect - is when it’s taken as a given that women are ‘allowed’ freedom of association and can set up clubs that exclude males, just because we want to. Like men are allowed to do.

I don't think men are allowed to. It's one of the things the more MRA inclined types get salty about, that there can be women-only protections, opportunities, social clubs etc but men-only versions are attacked as sexist.

The reason being, of course, that women (female type) in a sexist society need these things to from time to time escape, in certain contexts, escape the weight of men's outsize capture of social, economic and political resources so we can move towards equality, while men used them to maintain their hold on social, economic and political resources.

Treating people exactly the same is only equality if they start out the same.

Thing is though, the thing women have objected to about men only facilities? Highly elite clubs and organisations. Where there is no equivalent for women, and the club is in itself a block for women of access to the opportunities afforded to men within those organisations.

If there's a men-only rape support group, knowing the specific issues and challenges and feelings associated with male rape - how many women have ever kicked off about not being allowed to get in there with them and be a part of it?

Particularly if there were women's rape support groups available to them.

Male voice choirs. How many women demanding to get in there and force it to be mixed sex because they want what they want and they want it now and stuff the impact on men and the choir?

Where there are support groups for patients with specific male only diseases and disabilities, how many women (who don't and never will suffer from the disease or disability in question, have none of the needs and zero business being part of the specific peer support going on in the group) have kicked off and demanded that either the group lets them in or gets destroyed for being women-excluding?

Because all the above has been done by male people to females. Frequently.

There is no way to get around this being just fantastic entitlement, viewing female humans as props and resources male people have a right to use at will, and zero respect for female needs, feelings, voices, issues, or anything else based on a belief that if it doesn't affect male people it's not real or relevant anyway. And male people as a sex class really need to get a fucking grip on this and deal with the ones causing the issue, because it's getting embarrassing for them.

Very, very true @Artichokeleaves Great post.

‘I don't think men are allowed to. It's one of the things the more MRA inclined types get salty about, that there can be women-only protections, opportunities, social clubs etc but men-only versions are attacked as sexist.’

They are, if the aim is legitimate and the means are proportionate. Same as for women, and fact-specific.

‘If there's a men-only rape support group, knowing the specific issues and challenges and feelings associated with male rape - how many women have ever kicked off about not being allowed to get in there with them and be a part of it?’

Absolutely, I’d back a male-only rape support group. It’s perfectly reasonable.

@Artichokeleaves

I agree with your points and understand about proportionate aims. I was commenting specifically on "set up clubs that exclude males, just because we want to. Like men are allowed to do."

My point being the same as yours, that neither sex gets to exclude the other just because they want to, but the history of sexism means that there are more contexts when it's justified (proportionate) for women to exclude men than vice versa.

My point being the same as yours, that neither sex gets to exclude the other just because they want to
Why? Take gyms, for example. Why can't women have a female only setting for women who'd rather not exercise in front of men? Or vice versa, although that would probably less called for.
Just because a situation doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed if people choose to do it.
In practice none of these things necessarily apply to me either but I can't see any justification for disallowing it on the grounds of it not being fair.

Maybe I'm missing something but I read that letter as Truss acting in her official ministerial capacity, outlining the law as it currently stands and stating the government position (i.e. no plans to change it). I don't read it as Truss's personal opinion - surely she'd have no business expressing that in a letter she's writing as a government representative?

I take the point that the law as it stands is a hot mess (and I'm getting uneasy that previously I've said I would vote Labour if they committed to upholding it.) But for me, this letter is Truss doing her job, nothing more and nothing less. I don't see the gotcha that other posters (and Helen Joyce, for whom I have a lot of time) seem to be seeing, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Why can't women have a female only setting for women who'd rather not exercise in front of men? Or vice versa, although that would probably less called for.

I think you are still missing the point. Because we have a culture where men have more power than women, if either sex can exclude the other just because they want to, we get the all-male power networks that successfully exclude women from even being considered. No women in the bar. No women in the members areas and so on. (I'm not saying it's not happening anyway as men congregate in male-dominated activities and sports but at least we have some basis to challenge it).

So in the gym example, I'd say "Why do you want a women-only gym?" Because I can think of plenty of entirely reasonable answers which are not simply "because we want it".

This isn't just semantics BTW, I think it's really important that women (female ones) explain WHY we need female-only provisions and why those reasons don't always (though certainly yes, sometimes do) transfer to it being ok to have perfectly symmetrical male-only choices.

@Floisme, "the law, as it stands" is women can have single sex spaces, but if a transwoman wants in, let them.🤦‍♀️ We have seen this repeatedly during the Conservative government in prisons, hospitals, Rape Crisis, Girl Guides etc.

The law as it stands is failing women. I am not happy that Liz Truss wants to reassure LGBT groups privately that this law is not changing.

Yes thank you I'm aware of that, TooBigForMyBoots and it's why I said I was growing uneasy about saying I'd vote Labour if they would only commit to upholding this law. My main point though was that, if someone is writing in their capacity as a government minister then surely it's their job to outline their government's position, rather than any personal views?

The troubling part of that letter for me - and here I agree with you and other posters - is the bit about giving reassurance privately. I don't see how that word belongs in any ministerial correspondence