Whilst we are being told that GRA will make no difference to women, please remember what Stonewall are currently campaigning for

[BedTaker]

The narrative around GRA reform is that the Equality Act remains unchanged and so women will still be able to access single sex spaces using the exemptions in the EA.

Now, apart from. Lady Haldene's recent court ruling throwing into question what the definition of 'sex' and 'woman' even means in law (biology or paperwork), and requiring urgent clarification, Stonewall have this on their website right now as one of their 'recommendations' to the Women and Equalities Select Committee:

A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

At the moment, even those males with a GRC can be excluded from female only provision in certain situations. The above reads to me as though Stonewall want to remove those exemptions so that that would not be possible. If anyone is able to clarify this I would appreciate it.

Stonewall is the biggest 'LGBT' charity in the country, so this is fairly significant to me, even if its unlikely to ever be changed. I don't think they are going to stop until women do not have anywhere they can exist away from males.

Exactly! They must think we’re bloody stupid

One of the founders of Stonewall had this piece in the Mail today urging companies to abandon them:
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11564363/I-helped-Stonewall-today-plead-business-public-body-reconsider.html

Always worth pointing out that any organisation involved with Stonewall creates a hostile environment for women. Erasing women from maternity / employment policies increases the chance of discrimination against the sex who gestates and births babies. If you work somewhere that requires undressing / showering before after work, they openly advocate for men to intrude into those spaces in defiance of all the evidence about men and sex offending.
Stonewall are not just a menace - they're bloody dangerous.

I've heard this for sometime now and don't get it. No charity is allowed to campaign for people to lose rights, as I understand it (IANAL). If so, it appears that SW may be in contravention of their charitable status.

Where did you find it on their website, OP? Is it easy to find? I must make it my new year's resolution #1 to raise this with SW, which I believe is what you do before contacting the CC.

If it weren't for the fact my daughter would grow up without a truly female only space, I'd leave the daft women campaigning for this nonsense to live every aspect of it.

If you put 'select committee' into the search function on the website, it is the first hit.

I remember reading it on there a while back - I rather naively assumed that with all the sunlight being brought to the issue recently, they may have removed it from their website, lest their blatant misogyny be exposed. But no, its still there, they still stand by it.

No they aren't but they've been doing it for years. And the Charity Commission is too toothless to do anything.

Loads of charities are lobbying organisations, dressed up as charities

I think this is the most important fight for women at the moment. However woolly the wording is of the EA it is clear that in some circumstances women are entitled to single sex services, and that is based on biological sex, not what is on a GRC.

However not only is this widely disregarded, but in Scotland blatantly misused (presumably to set precendents), not enough organisation who could legitimately operate under the Single Sex exemption choose not to do it. Why are women's prisons and women's health provision automatically assumed to operate under the execmption?

Apart from the satisfaction of getting anyone with a GRC automatically excluded from genuine women's services, surely this should be a primary campaign and a recongintion that being female is a biological reality. (The exemption in the EA actually indicates that the law does know there is a difference between TW and biolgocial females.)

There should be a campaign that:
Clearly states that the single sex exemption exists
Clearly indicate which types of services this applies to and encourage take up
Clearly indicate that generic services that fail to provide women only services are in breach of the EA eg IamSarah's case against Survivor's Network
Clearly indicate that funders who say they will not fund women only services are also in breach of the EA eg Brighton Council and Scottish Government funding to SWA
And ...

The trouble is not just that Stonewall have an ideological determination to erase the single sex exemption, but that far too many members of the public dont think about this until they are met with it at an individual level whether changing rooms, or toilets, or sport, or ....

Wouldn't 'gender identity' as a protected characteristic in the EA also include those who are not trans (I hesitate to use the word, but 'cis'?) and those with no gender identity (ie, GC?)

It would be useless, for everyone, surely? Like so much of this legislation it is utterly useless without some legally robust and measurable criteria.

The protected characteristic is gender re-assignment. Even in Scotland are going to make it easier to get a GRC it makes no difference under the EA which specifically says where appropriate services can be provided only on the basis of sex born.

It is getting really frustrating that no one is taking up the challenge of why more organisations aren't utilising the legal provision of singed SEX spaces.

Or how many times it needs to be said that SEX in the instance of the EA is the SEX you are born. ie the biological reality.

Think of what we might have achieved by now if campaigning to get more instituions to use this instead of wasting money on court cases that only prove how the law currently works, or about making the exemption clearer. It cant be any clearer.

The problem is too many groups who could use it dont.

That is why Sarah's case is in fact the most important legally. The failure to provide single sex services.

Evil.
The page has been archived too: archive.ph/CDbai

Pretty sure Stephen Whittle, a transman has said that was always the plan. We are half the population but we are sleepwalking into an utter nightmare for women and my fear is, by the time women have women up to this, it will be too late...

So Stonewall published this in August 2015, where is the full report they mention in the text?

Here is link to Stonewall's reports but I can't see one for 2015? www.stonewall.org.uk/get-involved/stonewall-research

They really did say the quiet part out loud. I joined the fight in 2018 so this is before my time, but I'm very interested.

Timeline and data compiled by Sex Matters from the 2015 meeting. sex-matters.org/wesc/

It is not ‘access to single sex services’ that is allowed under the equality act, it is the single sex services themselves. So without this exemption we would have only mixed sex toilets, mixed sex changing rooms, mixed sex hospital wards, mixed sex prisons, mixed sex sports. This undermines the whole point of the equality act - that additional services can/must be provided to overcome discrimination on the basis of sex.

Meh, that was seven years ago. Like, speaking to other trans people there's little appetite for changing anything about the Equality Act or the statutory code, it works fine and has done for 12 years (and so did the sex discrimination legislation before it). SSEs so very rarely impinge on our lives.

Excellent. Then you, as a self-nominated speaker for ALL trans people (including female trans people) as per your other posts, will tell all the lobbyists to support the strengthening of the language and guidance around the Equality Act.

And will even join in encouraging the government to explicitly provide instructions and examples of how to enact the exclusions for all males, regardless of declared gender identity, of that act.... since you just admitted that the Equality Act doesn't and won't impinge on your lives (as per you, the self appointed trans spokesperson. Was that for the UK by the way, or the world?)

So, will you? Is that why you seem to be here on MN FWR? To learn how to support the female half of the UK population to strengthen their protections so that they are not accessed by males at all, regardless of how fervent a feeling they have that they are not male?

Because obviously, they are not female and can never be female. Any person who has a trans identity is only ever identifying as what they believe a person of the opposite sex might be.

Sorry to be a pedant but I think it’s “exceptions” rather than “exemptions”. Although you’d have thought SW would have run it past their lawyers before publishing.

In that case trans activists won’t mind it when feminists campaign to ensure the exceptions remain in place will they?

thanks. I will do better!!

Great - so you are all for getting behind feminists who are campaigning to clarify the EA, ensure that the definitions within it are sound, and to ensure that organisations know that when and how they can utilise the single sex exceptions, as at the moment Stonewall have been muddying the waters on this.

There is a petition at the moment calling for clarification of the Eqaulity Act, I hope that you sign it.

Sorry no. The EA doesn't need clarifying. We need more campaigning to make sure those organisation who could use it do use, and more campaigning to support those groups who are used it aren't targeted by TRAs or funders.

Clarification doesnot equal increased uptake / implementation.

So what are your views on the Haldane judgement?

Well she did add the qualifying remark about occassion when actual sex would take precedent, which is in line with how the EA is currently worded.

And this was confirmed by SNP minister in a radio interview.

The problem is that those who could implement the existing provision choose not to or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

And I dont think changing a few words is going to make those with this mind set start behaving differently.

I actually feel scared about this. Can this really happen? Why are those in power kit seeing this for what it is?