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

I wish Twitter had a dislike button as well as a like button.

It's such a joke that NK and Stonewall who are meant to advocate for same sex attraction, which is supposed to be a legally protected characteristic, can claim straight men are now lesbians.
It's the very definition of homophobia.

Which goes to show that the GRA was an Act passed for men and only men, men keep all their privileges as men and gain extra to the cost of women and Labour MP's think this is a marvellous law.

I sometimes wonder whether newly formed groups such as FPFW realise that they themselves aren't very well informed.

There are exisiting example of how and when under the current law (which I am not saying I agree with!) allows for single sex provision. They have been quoted on many threads onf FWR.

Sometimes these campaigns are more keen to impress by appearing to by cutting edge but not reflecting the reality, and too often dismissing what is actually going on. ie even under the existing laws most service providers are very aware of what is allowed but it is external pressure that is hindering them, or withdrawing funding.

Like the inane remark in the Sonia Sodha article, which again dismissed groups who have struggled to survive for years, without women like Sonia or those at FPFW giving them any support. Or like that bright spark who made some comment at a Parliamentary committee that women's groups are struggling with the wording. No they aren't. Saying that again is about a group of newbies trying to present themselves as being in the forefront whereas they are trailing behind. (Just hopes she updates her skills are researching the implementation of women only services before messing up Sarah's defence.)

It isn't the wording that is the problem.

It is the cultivated obstruction.

And why would another set of examples when one already exists stop those who are doing the obstruction from continuing to do it.

Its strange how all these women put themselves forward as fighting for single sex provision but seem to have no idea about how groups who are doing it are run.

Another example:

If you have a non-binary male with a non-binary female, are they now homosexuals because it's same gender attraction?