Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

EHRC strongly reject Stonewall's claims

48 replies

LangClegsInSpace · 10/05/2023 23:19

Yesterday Stonewall published an open letter and a press release denouncing EHRC's support for the clarification of the meaning of sex in law.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/ehrc-%E2%80%98actively-harming%E2%80%99-trans-people-ignoring-international-recommendations-charities

Some of it is blatant lies and some is blatant misrepresentation. It's all very dishonest so I am really heartened to see EHRC's response and their strong rejection of Stonewall's claims.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-following-recent-commentary-our-advice-regarding-definition-sex-equality-act

Stonewall has worked very hard to misrepresent the law, and to get as many orgs as possible to also misrepresent the law, for years and years, and have repeatedly used #NoDebate tactics to shut down criticism.

None of that is working for them any more. Narcissistic rage on an institutional level is a sight to behold 👀

I think we have a very real chance now of clarifying that sex means sex in the EA and not gender or gender identity.

I expect the tories will lose the next GE but if they can get this done before they go then that would be grand.

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 11/05/2023 08:45

I was underwhelmed because it skirted the issue and as Datun said "But no one is prepared to say men, women, or spaces". It vaguely referred to clashes of human rights without properly explaining what was specifically meant.

LangClegsInSpace · 11/05/2023 09:05

Whaeanui · 11/05/2023 06:24

I found this part interesting

We think that the UK government should consider simplifying the legislation so that all trans people have the same rights under the Equality Act. We think that this simplification could result in clarification for all trans people, including those who identify as non-binary.

What would that mean?

I don't think EHRC would be proposing further changes at this stage from what they have already proposed - i.e. sex in the EA to be legally defined as biological sex.

They mention NB once in their letter to KB:

Moreover, many trans people today would not describe themselves as transitioning from one sex to the other, but rather as living with a more fluid gender identity or without reference to a binary gender identity at all. Their legal protection in the Act may be unclear as in practice trans people are unlikely to be required to provide proof of their legal status except in unusual and uncommon situations.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/clarifying-definition-%E2%80%98sex%E2%80%99-equality-act
(link to the letter is at the bottom of the page)

So I think what they said yesterday was just echoing that.

It does clarify the law for NB people to reassert that regardless of whether they are covered by GR, they also have a biological sex and they have rights attached to that, as well as restrictions.

Otherwise, if someone IDs as NB how would they bring a sex discrimination claim? Who would be the comparator?

OP posts:
LangClegsInSpace · 11/05/2023 09:10

It's a shame they didn't actually name Stonewall when from their quotes it's very clear what they are reacting to.

I think it's fine though, they set out clearly what they thought already in the original letter to KB.

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 17:03

NecessaryScene · 11/05/2023 06:41

Isn't there some kind of regulator who can tell stonewall to correct the untrue claims that they have made?

The Charity Commission would be the regulator in question. Charity rules aren't particularly onerous, but they certainly expect a fair degree of decent behaviour that's normally not hard to meet, but I can imagine this sort of continued pattern of behaviour could trip over something.

Change the protected characteristic from gender reassignment to gender identity?

Or just remove it altogether. And add a clarifying note that "trans" is already covered by "religious belief" - anyone who believes they have a special soul is covered. And that then also would be symmetrical - anyone without the belief also can't be discriminated against. At the minute "gender reassignment" is not, so someone without "gender reassignment" can be discriminated against.

Although that would leave the Miranda Yardleys and other sane transsexuals out - they do have the current physical "gender reassignment", but not any sort of religious belief. But then a lot of the current "trans" would say they're not "trans".

I don't know how you cover Miranda Yardley and a non-binary under the same clause. Physical modification and religious belief are not the same thing.

So we're back to just removing it altogether to give all "trans" the same rights?

Stonewall are an NGO, surely? Do the CC regulate them?

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 17:06

Datun · 11/05/2023 08:19

Nothing less than total capitulation, total destruction of all boundaries and razing of the social contract will do for the TQ+ lobby.

And as soon as anyone even mildly objects, they go overboard.

But, imo, it actually has the opposite effect to one the intended now.

The tide has turned and the more extreme the trans lobby is, the easier it becomes for places like the EHRC to imbibe of some of Dr Terf's Spine Strengthener.

Yep. Really good to see the EHRC stand up for fairness and ALL protected characteristics.

I think you're spot on; Stonewall et al have pushed too far, it's now very clear that they are not 'in good faith', nor do they give the tiniest shit about women's rights or the rights of anyone who is not in 100% abeisance to their demands.

Which means they've lost all credibility.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 17:10

Hepwo · 11/05/2023 08:34

https://twitter.com/PompeySteph/status/1656544880334708736

Richards is a bit upset 😭

Oh no! Single sex means single sex!

Well, that seems disproportionate. Does nobody ever read 'the boy who cried wolf' anymore - TRAs have called everything from accidental misgendering to a lack of NHS provided hair removal transphobic genocidal hate crime.

Now, I'm not surprised if people just don't listen anymore.

I hope that the EHRC continues to work to counter discrimination, and that trans people are supported to live their lives free of harassment. The UK is, after all, pretty tolerant on the whole.

But males don't get to take women's rights. Sorry.

Datun · 11/05/2023 17:13

Which means they've lost all credibility.

Exactly. There's activism. And then there's such a departure from reality, you may as well shove pencils up your nose, wear underpants on your head, and say wibble.

nilsmousehammer · 11/05/2023 17:16

The distorted thinking is a key consistent part of the problem.

I did enjoy Stonewall's comment that the EqAct is working perfectly for them at present and they're very happy with how it is -

they cannot compute that it does not work for women or homosexuals, and that is not ok.

But it is increasingly appearing that other people's equality being considered and catered for TOO - not instead of but too - is 'genocide' and 'persecution' and much other hyperbolic distortion.

I remember a manager saying firmly to me years ago as I picked up the case of a known very difficult client "whatever you do you will never be able to make this person happy. So do your job and accept that."

This is what the EHRC and govt are now having to learn. You cannot make this group happy AND provide equality, inclusion and fairness for all. This group are going to have to learn to cope with other people mattering too.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 17:34

they cannot compute that it does not work for women or homosexuals, and that is not ok.

They may dimly be aware that for many people, the EA as is has major flaws, and that many are suffering because of them.

They don't care.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 17:35

Are organisations as a whole capable of a kind of sociopathy, I wonder?

Datun · 11/05/2023 18:41

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 17:34

they cannot compute that it does not work for women or homosexuals, and that is not ok.

They may dimly be aware that for many people, the EA as is has major flaws, and that many are suffering because of them.

They don't care.

Didn't they actually try to remove the exemptions?

Went out of their way to ensure women had no rights to any private spaces whatsoever.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 18:45

Removal of single sex exemptions from the EA was one of Stonewalls stated aims, yes. Not checked recently to see if they're still pushing for it.

As breathtaking as their pushing for the 'sex by deception' law to be repealed.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 18:55

This is on their 'news' page:

'How does the EHRC’s new guidance on single-sex spaces affect your guidance for Diversity Champions?

On 11 April 2022, the EHRC published non-statutory guidance for organisations about single-sex services.
Far from clarifying how the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act should be used, this non-statutory guidance is likely to create more confusion for schools, workplaces and service providers.
However, it’s important to note that as this is non-statutory guidance, it doesn’t change the existing law or statutory guidance, which organisations must adhere to.

The Equality Act 2010 protects trans people from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. A person has this characteristic if the person is “proposing to undergo, undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purposes of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.
The Act also protects people from discrimination on the ground of sex. The act says that a reference to someone with this protected characteristic is “a reference to a man or a woman”. There is no reference in the Act to the term ‘biological sex’.

There is a legal exemption in Schedules 3 and 23 of the Act which means that providers of single-sex services can in some circumstances legally exclude trans people where this is a ‘proportionate means to achieve a legitimate end’.
This is a highly fact-sensitive standard in a contested area of law, and there is little case law which establishes where an organisation could legitimately use this provision.

Save where an exemption applies, organisations should not prevent access to services on the basis of someone’s gender reassignment.
Our guidance for all organisations remains unchanged. We give the following good practice guidance to employers:

“There is a legal exemption in Schedules 3 and 23 of the Equality Act 2010, which means that providers of single-sex services can in some circumstances legally exclude trans people where this is a ‘proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim’. This is a highly fact-sensitive standard in a contested area of law, and there is little case law which establishes where an organisation could legitimately use this provision. There is also a potential tension between the requirement not to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010, and the requirement in health and safety law that employers provide toilets and changing rooms either on a single-sex basis or in individual lockable rooms. Save where an exception (as outlined above) applies, you should not prevent access to facilities, spaces and groups on the basis of a person’s gender reassignment.”

The most inclusive employers support all employees in accessing the facilities, spaces and groups that align with their lived gender.'

And by the by, they are a charity! Weird. I don't see how; I thought they were a lobby group.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1101255&subid=0

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/employercode.pdf#page=71

ResisterRex · 11/05/2023 18:57

On removal of exemptions. This link has been removed but it's archived I think.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/avisionfor_change.pdff_

"SEX BY DECEPTION
Recent ‘sex by deception’ cases involving trans people and gender identity issues have revealed an alarming lack of clarity around trans people’s rights and obligations to disclose or not disclose their trans history to their sexual partners. These cases demonstrate that it is possible for non-disclosure of a person’s trans status to impair the validity of consent. This leaves a great many trans individuals at risk of prosecution for a criminal offence. It is, however, still unclear as to whether the courts regard this to be the case for a trans person who has undergone medical transition, and it is further greyed by whether or not an individual can be defined as trans, based on their appearance, by the court. Clarity is urgently needed."

P31

Single sex one:

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

"A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces"

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 19:00

Wow, Nancy gets £120-£130k a year to tell lesbians they're sexual racists.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 19:01
  • at least, I'm presuming that's who gets the highest paid job?
Datun · 11/05/2023 19:13

There is a legal exemption in Schedules 3 and 23 of the Act which means that providers of single-sex services can in some circumstances legally exclude trans people where this is a ‘proportionate means to achieve a legitimate end’.
This is a highly fact-sensitive standard in a contested area of law, and there is little case law which establishes where an organisation could legitimately use this provision.

There might be 'little case law', but there are actual examples written into the act. Including sport as a typical example, and anywhere where one or more women might be gathering.

The act says that a reference to someone with this protected characteristic is “a reference to a man or a woman”. There is no reference in the Act to the term ‘biological sex’.

Haha! Now there will be in 1, 2, 3 ...

Foot shooting twats.

Honestly, they could make their agenda clearer. 'We want in your toilets and changing rooms'.

Datun · 11/05/2023 19:13

*could not

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 21:03

The act says that a reference to someone with this protected characteristic is “a reference to a man or a woman”. There is no reference in the Act to the term ‘biological sex’.

Aye at least they point out exactly the issue and how to fix it. One could start to think Stonewall are useful in at least unintentional ways ...

Whaeanui · 11/05/2023 21:16

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 21:03

The act says that a reference to someone with this protected characteristic is “a reference to a man or a woman”. There is no reference in the Act to the term ‘biological sex’.

Aye at least they point out exactly the issue and how to fix it. One could start to think Stonewall are useful in at least unintentional ways ...

Yes! Finally a use for them.

nilsmousehammer · 11/05/2023 21:52

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 21:03

The act says that a reference to someone with this protected characteristic is “a reference to a man or a woman”. There is no reference in the Act to the term ‘biological sex’.

Aye at least they point out exactly the issue and how to fix it. One could start to think Stonewall are useful in at least unintentional ways ...

There would be no specific detailed reference that can't be wangled because, as the EHRC say in their advice to govt, when the EqAct was written no one sane could envisage that things would become this utterly batshit.

I paraphrase, they were a bit more professional in how they put it.

ArabeIIaScott · 11/05/2023 21:53

😁

Hepwo · 11/05/2023 22:09

nilsmousehammer · 11/05/2023 17:16

The distorted thinking is a key consistent part of the problem.

I did enjoy Stonewall's comment that the EqAct is working perfectly for them at present and they're very happy with how it is -

they cannot compute that it does not work for women or homosexuals, and that is not ok.

But it is increasingly appearing that other people's equality being considered and catered for TOO - not instead of but too - is 'genocide' and 'persecution' and much other hyperbolic distortion.

I remember a manager saying firmly to me years ago as I picked up the case of a known very difficult client "whatever you do you will never be able to make this person happy. So do your job and accept that."

This is what the EHRC and govt are now having to learn. You cannot make this group happy AND provide equality, inclusion and fairness for all. This group are going to have to learn to cope with other people mattering too.

Absolutely right.

The overwrought reaction is sad.

No-one is saying all services must become single sex, only that they can, always could, and a reasonable accommodation can be made.

Ultimately though this hinges entirely on trans people making an effort to recognise their own reality and pull away from this pointless confrontation with everyone else's.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread