FPFW ask EHRC to clarify the lawful application of Schedule 9 Genuine Occupational Requirements

[ResisterRex]

From FPFW:

https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1645379870019444737?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"THREAD: Today we have written to the @EHRC asking them to publish a clarification on its website setting out the lawful application of Schedule 9 Genuine Occupational Requirements. /1

Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010 enables an employer, when necessary, to lawfully restrict a role to be female-only.

We have proved the EHRC with evidence of widespread and ongoing misuse of this single-sex exception /2

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

Schedule 9 does not allow an employer to restrict applications based on self-identity.

It does not include people who's sex is male even if they share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Put simply, men who identify as women are not covered by Schedule 9. /3

[They go on to provide examples where they say things are not being done lawfully, and end the thread as follows]

This is evidence of widespread misunderstanding of a law designed to reassure service users that the member of staff dealing with them is female.
Allowing some males to do a female-only job undermines this important single-sex provision. We hope the EHRC will act /8

Well done FPFW, I’ll be interested to see what response they get

Some of the examples they use include posts at rape crisis facilities and domestic violence support. Employing a TW in posts which are intended for women has the double whammy of a woman’s job being taken by a man, and the service then no longer providing the single-sex environment many of its users need

Thank you for highlighting Resister

Yes very well done FPFW.

Whilst I read this I also saw an absolutely batshit thread from Nancy ex stonewall.

Luckily barely any likes.

What FPFW have asked for can't come soon enough.

https://twitter.com/nancymm_k/status/1645361793873637376?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I saw that. Feels like someone could do this to it. But why bother?

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1645408146641367041?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

It wouldn't be difficult. Basically 'yes' Nancy. To all those points.

Quite. Would like a journalist to ask for her definition of "trans lesbian".

It's almost parody now.

She's also popping up everywhere on my feed now. Interesting info here....

(Didn't realise she was still stonewall? Did I dream she left?)

Yes Nancy, that is exactly the point, so that ‘single-sex’ is respected where it is important. TW are completely entitled to use all spaces and services provided for their sex class, plus any that are provided exclusively for trans people. They are not excluded, ever.

Alllll the qts say, duh, yes Nancy!

But back to the OP - I've seen the confused statement of 'women and non binary' or self identified women used repeatedly everywhere. Inc for educational events for girls.

Yes. All these things. (Except possibly bookclubs, maybe, but is this actually a real issue???)

Also it's not changing the definition. It's making it clear that sex is biological sex, which is something that, when the act was drafted, would have been blindingly obvious to everyone.

Transpeople are - rightly - protected by the characteristic 'gender reassignment'. It's only fair that women are protected, too, in those circumstances where it is just and proportionate to do so.

This is the split, isn't it? It's the whole point now. What Nancy is saying here is that going into matters concerning trans-identified females, isn't that they're "being used to justify nastiness" but that what the EHRC has done is to set out how poorly natal females are treated by anything prefixed with "trans":

https://twitter.com/nancymmk/status/1645361808767692800?s=46&t=WHoOZ3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And when you look through the examples listed by FPFW, you see it again. Except these are boring old cunty natal females who are being expected to make way for males in FEMALE ONLY jobs. But it's just us. The birth givers, the chest feeders. Them fucking dinosaurs:

Brighton women's centre
https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1645382685655695362?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Nottingham women's centre
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1645383448243195906?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Kirklees and Calderdale Rape and sexual abuse centre
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1645383843619258368?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Sheffield Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1645384237942546435?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Edinburgh rape crisis:
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1645384945240612864?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Love this QC!

FPFW are such a valuable organisation. Determinedly arguing women's case and intelligently using the courts to do so.

And that twitter thread from Nancy Kelley is dystopian. It shows just how embedded this delusion is:

To make it easier to exclude trans lesbians men from lesbian support groups.
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women’s book clubs
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women only shortlists
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women’s wards in hospitals, and from single sex services
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women’s sports

Maya is on the case now

twitter.com/mforstater/status/1645430807736057856?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I don’t know about book clubs but a formerly super TWAW now Terf friend of mine had a TW join her women’s running/walking group. Of course, all the women fell all over themselves to make them feel welcome and included. Then the TW started being inappropriate while they were running together - talking about sex or getting waxed or how their breasts were growing. The women felt uncomfortable but wrote it off as just bad social skills, just transitioning, doesn’t know how women behave yet. Felt guilty about feeling uncomfortable so doubled down on inclusion. Then TW started imitating women in the group - at first they wrote it off as plausible, just getting advice, doesn’t know how to dress, but it was getting like TW showing up in exact outfit one of the women was wearing last week with hairstyle imitated and everything, and literally imitating everything about their life. TW continued violating boundaries further - texting women late at night saying their breasts were hurting and did the women rub anything on their boobs, or saying they had a rash between their legs from sweat and what underwear were they wearing. Women now were getting creeped out extremely but still trying to be good allies and justify it. Then started stalking one of the women in the group and propositioning her sexually. Basically the women disbanded the running group and claimed to have injuries/child care/work/ going to gym instead. Friend turned into terf after that but other women apparently still in denial.

so keeping a book club single sex isn’t a strange desire.

Groups should be enabled to be single sex if they want to. All of the women only groups I can think of are women only because they acknowledge shared experience by virtue of sex. Otherwise, and where it doesn't matter they are mixed sex. I don't see books clubs or running groups as any different. If women want to meet with women it should be legal!!

Why should transwomen be included in all those things, Nancy? They are male, the females of this world are perfectly entitled to do things, be places and have their safety, privacy and dignity respected and that means excluding males when necessary or wanted.

I know it challenges your intelligence, Nancy, but sometimes women just want to be amongst other women with no men, however those men identify or whatever those men think they are. They and you, Nancy, just need to get over it.

Nice ratio Nancy.

I find it hard to imagine any situation where a hitherto single sex group would wish to admit TW but continue to exclude other men.

I can’t see any reason to include TW but not men to any of those scenarios.

Fair enough, many women will be ok with mixed sex book clubs- but then you wouldn’t be excluding other men would you? An all male or all female book group would be fair enough, there’s plenty of other mixed groups I would have thought. If women want it all women there’s a reason so yes, transwomen should not be admitted. If a group wishes to include transwomen fair enough. And an all trans book group would also be fine, and women should be excluded unless they identify as trans.

But the rest should all be single sex. It’s unreal anyone is arguing against it- the fact that a lesbian in charge of the biggest charity for (allegedly) supporting lesbians doesn’t agree they should have a place inaccessible by men is mind blowing! How does Nancy distinguish between trans lesbians and heterosexual men? Because their own definitions don’t make it that clear at times.

The GRA is such a mess that it even states this about peerages:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/16

"This provides an exception to the proposition stated in section 9(1))^. The descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour will take place as if a person recognised in the acquired gender were still of the birth gender. The same rule applies to any property that passes with it, unless the will or other instrument governing the property departs from this rule by express provision."

I don't see Stonewall batting for the rights of natal females here. I don't wonder why.

I just wanted to say thank-you to FPFW for their tireless dedication and determination. It is very much appreciated.