Seeking straightforward answers to GRRBill question

[morningtoncrescent62]

I'll put my hands up at the outset to not being the most articulate person. I think I understand something, but when I'm asked, especially by someone who's hostile or borderline hostile, I tie myself up in knots.

Can anyone help me out with a clear, memorable answer to the question, "But what difference does it (the Scottish self-ID process) make to women's single-sex spaces, as you don't need a birth certificate to enter them"?

I've read a lot about this, and particularly the MurrayBlackburnMackenzie blogs which explain it all in detail. But in conversation, when I get asked that question, I struggle to marshall my thoughts and explain it clearly. To be fair, I've heard people being interviewed on the same question on TV in the last few days who've also struggled, or not answered it at all. Any ideas?

I think there's a lot of truth here, here's to more services having the confidence to implement SSEs.

However, looking at things from a different perspective, I can see how many organisations - those who might not be easily defined as providing services from which trans people were excluded or not, but that need to organise their services in a way which treats their employees or service users (other than the trans one) equally under the EA, and their fear of litigation if they don't.

For example (hypothetical):

As charge nurse on day shift (short staffed, as usual), I am sent a clinical support worker (CSW) from the staff bank, who I have not met before and is obviously male. He seems friendly and hardworking. During handover, we are reminded that female patient on the ward has stated that she only wants female staff to provide intimate care to her. On the ward, I notice that the CSW is preparing to to accompany a nurse, to bed-bath that particular female patient. I gently reiterate that that patient has requested female only care and ask the CSW to swap with a female member of staff. The CSW states he is female. I'm not sure what to say, but manage a "I don't think the patient will think that you are". The CSW tells me politely that he has a GRC and female birth cert. (This may or may not be true (it would be an offence for me to ask to see a GRC and highly unusual to ask to see a birth cert at work), and, in any case, it may well be that he does indeed possess that documentation, but remains, quite obviously, male - since obtaining a GRC required precisely zero alterations to one appearance etc).

On that busy ward, how do I ensure my patient’s rights are upheld, without leaving my employer open to a charge of discrimination on basis of gender reassignment under the Equality Act, since his sex is considered to be female for all legal purposes (on basis of Equality Act and reiterated by Lady Haldane judgement) and, by asking him to swap with a female member of staff in order to bed-bath a patient, I have discriminated against him the basis of that protected characteristic?

Again this is entirely hypothetical and I am no lawyer, but I can't figure out how this would play out, other than a finding against my employer if I insisted the CSW did not provide care to a patient who had requested female only care.

Anybody any ideas?

You would discriminate on the grounds of gender reassignment if you treated the CSW differently from someone who had not had gender reassignment. That is, another man.

In this example you are permitted to discriminate on the grounds of sex, under the exemption for physical contact between the person with the protected characteristic and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the contact is by a person of the opposite sex.

But, my understanding is that his sex is now female ‘for all purposes’ as per Haldane judgement, no? Genuinely, perplexed.

Over on another thread we are working to get signatures for a Parliamentary petition to update the Equality Act to make clear that ‘sex’ in the protected characteristic ‘sex’ means biological sex.

We are trying to get 100,000 signatures as then there could be a debate in Parliament. There are now just over 75,000.

Meanwhile, the first 10,000 meant a response was due.

This is the response. They are refusing to see that the meaning of sex - as being of necessity biological- has been confused and muddied so much by gender identity ideology, that women’s spaces are turning into mixed sex spaces because providers believe gender is sex. Providers have been institutionally captured.

They obviously also didn’t want to fall foul of a counter petition to not clarify and update sex to make sure it is biological sex.
Slithery.

This response was given on 26 January 2023
Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified. Further clarification is not necessary.

Read the response in full
The Equality Act 2010 provides protection against discrimination, harassment and victimisation across a number of grounds, including sex. We are committed to upholding Britain’s long-standing record of protecting the rights of individuals against unlawful discrimination.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have published guidance on the existing legislation which provides much needed clarity to those offering single-sex spaces. It does not change the legal position or the law.

As the guidance makes clear, it is entirely acceptable for providers of single-sex services to take account of the biological sex of their service users. Where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the Equality Act 2010 is clear that service providers can exclude, modify or limit access for transgender people, even where they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This includes where a service provider has concerns that the presence of individuals who are biologically male could prevent them from meeting their aims, such as in the example below, included in the guidance:

“A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow trans women to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are likely to be traumatised by the presence of a person who is biologically male.”

It is important that providers of single-sex services are clear that biological sex can be taken into consideration when providing services.

The Government is committed to maintaining the safeguards that allow organisations to provide single-sex spaces. It is important that the principle of being able to operate spaces reserved for women and girls is maintained. Government is committed to tackling harassment and abusive behaviours by all individuals, and ensuring single-sex spaces are safe for those using them.
Cabinet Office
At 100,000 signatures...
At 100,000 signatures, this petition will

Thanks - slithery indeed - such obfuscation. I’ve signed the petition. Would be great if there was a debate.

No.

Especially if you aren't in Scotland- the Haldane judgement was in the Scottish Court of session and doesn't apply to the rest of the UK.

However, even if you are in Scotland 'all purposes' in the Haldane judgement, just as in the original Act, does not mean 'all purposes'.

Her wording was :

"the acquired gender becomes the person’s sex ‘for all purposes’ subject to any other enactments, or the statutory exceptions listed.”

And later states that" "providing that the plain language of section 9, and any relevant exceptions, is applied.”

[Italics in both quotes = my emphasis]

The specific single-sex exemptions set out in the Equality Act remain in place.

oc21 · Today 22:45
Thanks - slithery indeed - such obfuscation. I’ve signed the petition. Would be great if there was a debate

The more I think of that Government response the angrier and more cynical I feel.

They must know the meaning of sex has been obscured to such an extent that wherever you look from schools to judges to dictionaries it is being given a new meaning of gender linked to a sense of identity.

This is below is what is supposed to have made things clear. This is their excuse for not making clear that sex is biological in the Equality Act.

The Girl’s Day School Trust has dared to exclude on the grounds of sex, and JKR’s rape crisis centre. Otherwise, people don’t seem to dare do this so something about the EA has gone wrong. Sex Matters started the petition. I wonder what they’ll say about that response.

Equalities and rights: Conflict and the need for clarity - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equalities-and-rights-conflict-and-the-need-for-clarity

That makes sense, I think, thanks.

Although if you’re correct, I don’t understand the furore over the Haldane judgement. Surely, if female representation on public boards was the aim of the legislation under Judicial review, then the exceptions you cite from the judgement would permit TIM with a GRC to be treated differently than women i.e. excluded from being counted as women on public boards.

Also, are there specific exceptions in the EA for the treatment of an employee (as in my patient care example). rather than the exclusion from a service that is considered appropriately single -sex? I’ll try to look the up myself too. Thanks for replying.