Incorrect guidance on single-sex spaces and gender self-identification - gov.uk asking for examples

[RandySavage]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/call-for-input-incorrect-guidance-on-single-sex-spaces-and-gender-self-identification

Apparently this has not been well publicised - I cannot think why not.

This seems like a great opportunity for the marvellous GC Mumsnetters to have their voices heard. I don't believe there is anyone in the UK better informed on this subject than a reader of the Feminism: Sex and Gender board

Also, non-binary is not a thing in law. GR is about identifying as the opposite sex, so saying that you are "non-binary" doesn't give you the PC of gender reassignment.

I’m reading this as a good thing for women

It’s pro single sex

https://www.thegymgroup.com/globalassets/documents/transgender-inclusion--equality-policy--002.pdf

Interesting I just googled and found this

Excellent that the governemnt (or at least Kemi Badenoch) are on this. Thanks for posting.

My local.hospital.does this. So , for rxample, if an unconscious man on a stag do was admitted wearing "womens clothes" and a wig he'd be put on a female ward. 🤔 idiotic.

This is from trans actual. Do you agree this advice is wrong. They have taken ‘case by case’ to mean individual by individual not situation by situation. They are an organisation offering advice.

Yes definitely submit both of those!

@Justme56 i think that guidance is wrong, yes.

Women-only spaces are pretty much always created because of safety, privacy and dignity. They will easily be able to meet the “proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim” to exclude all males, regardless of their trans status.

EHRC guidance:

To rely on the objective justification defence, the employer, service provider or other organisation must show that its policy or age-based rule was for a good reason – that is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.
To prove objective justification:

• the aim must be a real, objective consideration, and not in itself discriminatory (for example, ensuring the health and safety of others would be a legitimate aim)
• working out whether the means is ‘proportionate’ is a balancing exercise: does the importance of the aim outweigh any discriminatory effects of the unfavourable treatment?
• there must be no alternative measures available that would meet the aim without too much difficulty and would avoid such a discriminatory effect

You have identified advice that is clearly wrong.
See:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

I hope this means Kemi will be issuing guidance.

Because i'm sure many service providers, retailers, universities, etc, don't realise that it's perfectly legal to exclude transwomen from women's facilities.

They need to be reassured that they can sex segregate without reprisals.

I'd also like them to be told that if they do have mixed sex facilities, then they need to let customers know and not stealthily slip it past them in the hope it won't put customers off. (I'm looking at you, M&S).

Oh good. The DWP removed the word 'sex' rom their equality statement about 4 years ago and basically laughed at me because 'gender' is inclusive.

This is fun. I've just done one for Girl Guides.

Link to their equality statement if anyone wants to see what they say

https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/policies/equality-and-diversity-policy/

Christ, that reads like a statement of a creed. And when they're talking about boys and men, could they say girls and young women more??

Also

But, this isn’t the case for everyone. Sex doesn’t always determine gender identity. Around 1 in 100 people, maybe more, will find that the gender they have recorded at birth isn’t a good match for who they know themselves to be.

One in a 100??

They also claim the entire batshit statement is based on the law. So it probably is a good candidate for Kemi's barking bin.

I have checked the adult safeguarding, fostering and disabled safeguarding policies of my council and they used gender instead of sex. So disabled people are able to choose intimate carers of a particular gender. Am I right to think this is a valid instance to report?

also, is there a deadline?

Thanks

@Datun They don't tell parents about it either.

There is a MNer who was basically kicked out for saying it was a safe guarding issue.

I don't know if a number of people reporting has more impact but I don't think it can do any harm if you want to report too.

Yes that would be worth reporting. I'm not aware of a deadline but it was only announced this week so you'd have time.

Well I have just looked at Keele uni and Staffordshire uni, their 'trans policies' are identical and include.

A Transgender person should have access to ‘men-only’ and ‘women-only’ areas – such as changing rooms and toilets – according to the gender in which they present. This may mean that a person changes the facilities they use at the point when they start to live in their acquired gender. Their presence in a particular toilet should not be questioned.

Can I ask everyone to check the uni they attended or the uni their child attends?

Indeed.

And they used this male 'dominatrix' as a girl guides commissioner, who also, if I recall correctly, posted pictures of themself in the bath.

And...

.In a third photo shared on Twitter, Ms Sulley posed in a fairly low cut top with the caption: "Boobs, or did you want to see more?". She was seen in a further picture clutching a sword.

And since they don't tell parents, parents wouldn't have known.

And even if not all these issues reach the criteria, it can't hurt for as many people as possible to be aware of them.

@Datun, so true.

I've actually put the quote I put above in to google and it bringing up identical policies from various unis and NHS organisations.

They could look at DfE data sites. Get Information About Pupils, for example. Or the live attendance connection to schools that is a legal requirement.

The filter for Male/Female is still Gender.

When MIS companies have to 'un-fix' software to record Sex as Gender so that census returns still work - and then have to re-fix it later, only to have to un-fix it again for another census, it's not just a waste of time and money, it further confuses what they are actually looking for (and, FWIW, it's never gender identity that they're looking for, as that isn't collected).

Yes I’ve just done the same thing. Many many universities have this same wording. So they’ve clearly simply copied and pasted this as someone else suggested, from an original source. I’m hoping by the time people like us have sent info they’ll realise how big the problem is.

A Transgender person should have access to ‘men-only’ and ‘women-only’ areas – such as changing rooms and toilets – according to the gender in which they present. This may mean that a person changes the facilities they use at the point when they start to live in their acquired gender. Their presence in a particular toilet should not be questioned.

It's such a fucking nerve. You must let men in your intimate spaces ladies and girls, and if you don't like it, shut the fuck up.

And the fact that so many universities have it is its own bloody scandal.

Have a read of this:

Example: A clothes shop has separate changing areas for male and female customers to try on garments in cubicles. The shop concludes that it would not be appropriate or necessary to exclude a transsexual woman from the female changing room as privacy and decency of all users can be assured by the provision of separate cubicles.

From the EHRC

What’s the source of this one? What I find incredible is even if an organisations policy is reasonable on these grounds, all the wording is so heavily weighted in favour of Trans, you can tell they’re so worried about offending anyone except women it seems.