“UKA has today outlined its position relating to transgender participation in athletics in the UK.”

[Helleofabore]

www.uka.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UKA-Trans-Position-Statement_FINAL-03.02.23.pdf

This is what Jon Pike said was coming.

I am finding it hard to know what the law will cover or not. I hope there is clarity soon.

I agree with this. And I find the plans to make online misogyny a hate crime very concerning because of what definition of "woman" will be that it rests on.

But a bit like the batshit trans conversion therapy ban idea, it is maybe better to do this now, ahead of the election.

We can point to loads of evidence to blame the Tories for not taking a firmer stand sooner and of course the idea of self-ID gained legitimacy from them and the LDs.

BUT...look what's happened worldwide. Look at what Biden did on day 1, what's happened in Canada, Australia and so on. There is a concerted, global effort to remove women's rights and eliminate child protection.

We ain't doing too bad against that. And this is better sorted now than with Self-ID Starmer at the helm. That's not to say Labour won't try it, but it will be much harder for them to achieve if good evidence can be got out now and on the record.

This petition to clearly define “sex” in the Equality Act as biological might help.
To sign
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

I've often rued DD's pony not being a mare because he's a little star and I could do with duplicating him! Can't identify him into being female, unfortunately.
The analysis of the legal stuff is fascinating but fuck me, what a mess.

The analysis of the legal stuff is fascinating but fuck me, what a mess.

My thoughts exactly - the provision in the EA goes some way to help sporting bodies but they need to utilise it, but how the EA and GRA interact with each other, and how they conflict/contradict each other is becoming so tricky and it's undeniable now, it's difficult to see how this can be rectified without some drastic action.

Yes, it's perfectly possible that males with a GRC will sue, but they would be on shaky ground

This makes sense to me

And UKA need to weigh up the cost of being sued for unfair discrimination by males with GRCs against the cost of being sued for sex discrimination by female athletes.

Agreed - and women could potentially sue if injured as well as for unsafe and unfair completion as direct discrimination.

I don't want a single woman to be injured but I wonder if it's just a matter of time before we see a case before the courts on this.

I'm waiting for news of this case (though a safety issue not sex discrimination).

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11295695/Ex-rugby-league-stars-set-launch-legal-action-against-RFL-sue-brain-injuries.html

@QuadsZilla
I think the Bridges case would be essentially a question of compensation for BC having changed the rules on Bridges at short notice. I would think British Cycling would just settle a case like that. Bridges could not force a change of policy, I don't think, because excluding males from the female category is lawful. I'm not sure if Bridges has a GRC - I suspect not - but that would not make a difference (as per EHRC legal guidance).

Well done. Fairness triumphs.

Yes but the government and ehrc says there’s enough in the equality act to this isn’t needed 🙄

NowWhatUsernameShallIHave · Today 19:12
+Yes but the government and ehrc says there’s enough in the equality act to this isn’t needed 🙄*

Sex-Matters has launched this Parliamentary petition to update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is legal sex because they think this would help clear up the uncertainty.

Although it currently has 78,572 signatures the aim is 100,000 before the cut off on 20th April, as that means the Government will consider a debate.

We must not take this for granted. On the petition map which you can see on the website showing numbers of signatures by region, you can see that England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are nothing like as aware as Scotland is following Lady Haldane’s judgement. Most people have no idea about all this.

To sign and share the petition
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Correction : “Sex-Matters has launched this Parliamentary petition to update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex because they think this would help clear up the uncertainty.”

How do UKA exclude transwomen from sport when they wave a female birth certificate in their face, how do they 'prove' they are transwomen to reject them?

Birth certificates should not be allowed to be changed. They really shouldn't. They should be a factual record of someone's birth.
Start messing with facts and they become meaningless.

In 100 years time how will anyone be able to research family history, when you have people born as one sex, marry as another and die as something else.

Birth certificates should not be allowed to be changed. They really shouldn't. They should be a factual record of someone's birth.
Start messing with facts and they become meaningless.

Absolutely this. I quite liked the suggestion (on this thread or another, I'm not sure) of a 'short' birth certificate which wouldn't give sex or gender at all, but with natal birth being recorded in the full version. Once you start messing around with birth certificates, medical records etc, we'll, that's a recipe for future chaos, isn't it?

of course they shouldn't be changed. it's an act of forgery. the process should be more akin to changing your name by deed poll.

The idea that these obvious points should even be in doubt is depressing, though.

Some sort of deed poll would make more sense.

But really should we be indulging in it at all ?
I do think society should be as accepting of men in skirts and dresses as we are of women in jeans and t-shirts.
But men, need to own it and not pretend to be something they aren't.

I can only see 3 reasons for men or women to want to change sex, stereotypes which need broken down, a genuine dislike of their body, we don't encourage anorexics who don't like their body, or its a sexual kick.

In 100 years time what do we want people to look back and think?

@Sugarfree23

Well, yeah, and there's certainly some malicious players out there. But it's late, and I'll say no more.

This is absolutely fantastic news!

OhHolyJesus · Yesterday 18:43
The analysis of the legal stuff is fascinating but fuck me, what a mess.

My thoughts exactly - the provision in the EA goes some way to help sporting bodies but they need to utilise it, but how the EA and GRA interact with each other, and how they conflict/contradict each other is becoming so tricky and it's undeniable now, it's difficult to see how this can be rectified without some drastic action.

Yes, it's perfectly possible that males with a GRC will sue, but they would be on shaky ground

This makes sense to me

And UKA need to weigh up the cost of being sued for unfair discrimination by males with GRCs against the cost of being sued for sex discrimination by female athletes.

Agreed - and women could potentially sue if injured as well as for unsafe and unfair completion as direct discrimination.

I don't want a single woman to be injured but I wonder if it's just a matter of time before we see a case before the courts on this.

I'm waiting for news of this case (though a safety issue not sex discrimination).””

@OhHolyJesus

You seem to understand law, or be very analytical.
If you look at the petition site to update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex “ is biological, you will see the Government sent out a response as a result of the first 10,000 signatures.
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Basically they are saying it is clear as it is.

Here is their first sentence:

" ^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”.^

Can you understand why they are claiming it is clear when it seems self-evident providers don’t dare provide single sex spaces?

When even the OED App says homosexuality is same sex or gender attracted.

When Lady Haldane has said sex is not only biological.

When a GRC means someone can change the “sex” on their birth certificate.

When they themselves have just said
“sex/and or gender reassignment?

I'm just trying to understand it, the provisions in the law are clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer - I would hope that the lawyers paid by UKA to understand this know better than I do!

Can you understand why they are claiming it is clear when it seems self-evident providers don’t dare provide single sex spaces?

Best I can explain it as, from my POV, is that it is lawful to exclude but not compulsory. So if UKA want to exclude men who identify as women, from the women's competition, as long as they can evidence why they are doing this and applying such a policy, this would likely be lawful and anyone complaining wouldn't have much of a legal argument for say, direct discrimination.

UKA could also decide to allow men who identify as women (and presumably ones who don't, with or without a GRC) compete in the women's competition, as is it not compulsory to exclude them. This would then rely on the women complaining and taking a case of direct discrimination, evidencing safety and fairness, etc. This would probably be considered unlawful if the gendered activities wording could be applied. Again, I'm not a lawyer.

It's far from ideal. But as far as I can tell - the sporting bodies are looking to the government for reassurance or permission to exclude and as the law allows for this already they do not need permission - but given the likely accusations of transphobia etc, the sporting bodies are scared and want someone to come in and override this. This makes sense to me as they want to avoid the admin and cost of legal action, but the government can refer to the EHRC statement which reiterates existing law. This then puts it back to the sporting bodies...and round and round we go.

In my view, the sporting bodies are not wrong to ask for reassurance but since this has been provided for in the law - and perhaps their lawyers didn't see this - the decision remains with them as their policy is for them to decide. They need to grow a spine and say no. It is lawful to exclude for fairness and safety (if evidenced) and I can't think of many examples of where it would not be evidenced.

This is only my understanding.

Thank you, for explaining, OhHolyJesus

Reading your post again I realise you have asked a different question @ScrollingLeaves my apologies.

For the response from civil servants to the petition, I think the response to the sex matters petition is really clear, and I agree with this, they haven't answered the question, so they can say what they want but it's not actually addressing the question the petition asks.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-in-the-equality-act/

As it nears 100k signatures I would hope that the parliamentary debate should actually address the question being asked, if they get to ask it.

...and as for Lady H, well I could list a round of expletives, but to be nice I'll simply say she is wrong. I consider her judgement to be wrong. Are FWS appealing? I hope so.

If we didn't have the appeal from Maya Forstater we wouldn't have WORIADs and maybe we wouldn't have Sex Matters? Judges get things wrong. I disagree with Lord Falconer speaking at the WESC this week about trusting the courts. There are many occasions when we shouldn't (we have appeal courts for good reason.) I would say Lady H is one of those times.

The problem with the Equalities Act is that the default position is that any organisation needs to have good reasons to exclude a trans woman from a woman-only space/club/event.

IMHO the EA default position should be that trans woman should be excluded from women-only spaces/clubs/events unless there is a good reason not to. UKA (and some others) want this point strengthened.

OhHolyJesus · Today 18:50
Thank you again. It was good of you to come back to answer so much more.

I thought she was wrong, but then Sarah Phillimore was on a thread and seemed to be saying L Haldane’s judgement said what she had always thought:

It is going to be very difficult to restore 'sex' to its proper place and meaning and I think now cannot be achieved without new legislation. The Lady Haldane judgment confirmed what I had always thought - that the GRA changes your legal sex, unless the exceptions apply. Those exceptions have now been muddled and obfuscated over decades leaving everyone very confused about when they are allowed to insist on single biological sex spaces or providers.

I think too that even if Lady Haldane is wrong, that she came up with that judgement, means nothing is as clear as the government says.

It would be good if FWS appeal against her judgement.