UK Government response to sex in the Equality Act petition

[EnfysPreseli]

The UK Government has at last published its response to the petition calling for clarification that sex means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010. It reads like it was written by someone who has been living under a rock for the last 7 years and has no awareness of the confusion, misrepresentation or even the recent judicial review (Haldane). It's here on the petition page and also pasted below: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

'Government responded
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.

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'

Pathetic. Did they read Lady Haldane's judgment? Have they noticed what is in the GRR Bill?

pish.

They do specifically mention biological sex, though. Maybe they're saying the Haldane judgment is perverse and supporting examples are all that's needed?

Well it reinforces Sarah’s case with an uptodate response from the government showing that the government understands Sarah is right.

Totally misses the point. If they don’t respond to the concern that was raised, what was the point of responding at all?

Wonder which civil service trainee had the joy of writing this.

They need to stop saying that services have the option of maintaining single sex spaces and make it clear that they are obligated to maintain single sex spaces.

Does anyone know if we can complain about the response and if so to whom?

They’re not though. In certain circumstances single sex spaces are permissible under the equality act. They are not mandatory.

And so they are disappearing.

Is discrimination against women allowed under the act? Is not the purpose of single sex exemptions to prevent discrimination? In which case is it not the case that they must be provided if their absence leads to discrimination against women and girls?

For the nine hundred and ninety ninth time the Lady Haldane ruling made no change to the practice of the single sex exemptions. In fact she specifically mentions them.

So all the government response is saying how the SSE should work.

The problem is not enough groups or organisations use it. We should campaign for prisons, the NHS and so on to be coverd and actively use the SSE.

But the problem is that the EA is written that the small minority of trans people take precedent over the larger group ie women (or in fact men)

The EA should have been written so that sex was the norm and the exemptions were the few occassions where those with a GRC were allowed to (pretend) to be the opposite sex.

So its a toss up. Is the Government responsible for the fact that so many people dont give a 4 letter word for women's rights and so dont take advantage of the SSE.

Or do we have to campaign to get the Government to agree a list of organisations, institutions that should operate under the SSE.

Women's rights shouldn't be subject to the whims, lazy bureaucracy and general disrespect for women.

You would have thought after this weeks events re a rapist in a women's prisoner that they might have gone, hmmmmmm these conflicting characteristic seem to be working against women.

You wouldn't have thought it would take that much Parliamentary time to adjust the wording of the EA.

(Did anyone see Sandy Brindley CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland being interviewed on the news re rapist in women's prison? Not that hard to believe but her comments that we were all wrong to say that a rapist was a threat to women, because trans women would also be at risk. Which on one level is total whataboutery, but on the other hand a slip on her behalf as she was distinguishing between women and trans women. She will be put on the naughty step.)

Before I go to bed

Is discrimination against women allowed under the act? Is not the purpose of single sex exemptions to prevent discrimination? In which case is it not the case that they must be provided if their absence leads to discrimination against women and girls?

This is absolutely spot on @Shelefttheweb

Have they thought this through? Either they misunderstood (what about equal pay etc?) or it undermines their challenge to the Scottish government if they claim the EA deals with it all.

Didn’t the prisons case establish that it was open to the prison service to make prisons single sex but they were not obligated to do so?

Fudge, fudge, glorious fudge....

Yes, that's the C&P normal banality one expects from the govt to any petition.

However in this case, yes I'm positive the government would like to leave it all nicely fudged to try and let it look like it's being all things to all people, because to sort it out would mean actually standing up for and defending equality of women against a very loud and difficult group of men.

And those men do not like women having rights or clarity or words or identities, and do like threatening when said women look like they're breathing too loudly.

No. The EqAct does not work and is helping to fuck over women.

The email sent out to signatories also had a letter from Kemi Badenoch apologising for the late response and explaining why:

committees.parliament.uk/publications/33727/documents/184227/default/

"The delay was caused by exceptional factors including waiting for the conclusion of a directly relevant case being heard by the Court of Appeal in Scotland on this issue. We took the view that it would be helpful to the petitioners if we could respond in full knowledge of the Court’s ruling on this matter.

Now that the Court has made its ruling and with apologies for the delay, I now attach the Government’s response to this petition to accompany this letter."

I'm going to write to my MP (Tory, but sensible on this) and ask what IS going to be done to strengthen single sex provision, if there's no need to update the actual Act.

I have quickly read the response - but surely the big win would be to get the petition to 100000 so it is debated in Parliament?

And aren't these debates underway anyway, and breaking through to mainstream media?

Last night, after news of that horrible rapist broke, I shared a Terfy Facebook post and got FOUR people to sign.....

Not only that, but I actually peaked a friend of mine and convinced him that this whole thing needs more thought and discussion - that's after several heated debated with him over the years where he absolutely was not on board.....

But the problem is that the EA is written that the small minority of trans people take precedent over the larger group ie women (or in fact men)

The EA should have been written so that sex was the norm and the exemptions were the few occassions where those with a GRC were allowed to (pretend) to be the opposite sex.

this is the heart of it IMO. It’s just too easy for organisations to deliberately misconstrue the meaning. It needs rewording.

Kemi Badenoch's letter makes sense and just confirms what I'm sure many of us thought were the reasons for the delay. What doesn't make sense is the compilation of boilerplate paragraphs of what should be happening in the response from the Cabinet Office. We know all that already, but there is so much evidence that clarification is necessary otherwise the SSEs and other aspects of the Act won't operate as intended. Surely UK Government can see that continuing on a path of Employment Tribunals, judicial reviews and various other disputes in the Courts isn't desirable. Women and girls will continue to bear the brunt in their everyday lives, much of it under the radar and legally unchallenged; and we'll be contributing to crowdfunders for the cases that are pursued for the foreseeable future.

Apart from all that it's allowing an environment that does the opposite of fostering good relationships between protected groups to continue.

Isn't it better for everyone if they grasp the nettle now?

Wonder how Sex Matters feel about it.

And as if by magic...

There are 10 reasons why they think the response isn't good enough here: twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1618897788624048128?t=ySSv9TJAcNQ4UcRoXMYcBQ&s=19

Should have included this link to the full write up sorry, but my phone is playing silly b**gers.
sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-in-the-equality-act/

Thank you for posting this. I was waiting to see what they said. So the response from the government via the Cabinet Office is a response to something that has not been petitioned for.

Good. Perhaps that means this can and should keep going.