New EHRC guidelines - women only jobs

[RedToothBrush]

Fairplay for women
BREAKING: New EHRC guidance relating to ‘women-only’ job adverts.

“A ‘sex-based’ occupational requirement to be a woman under Schedule 9 cannot include transgender women who have not obtained a GRC” /1
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/guidance-discriminatory-adverts

We have been calling for this guidance for a long time. We have been reporting rogue employers each time they misuse the law by advertising for ‘self-identifying women’ to fill women-only roles. /2

In March this year EHRC promised to publish new guidance. From now on no employer can say it didn’t understand the rules. /3

This new guidance that makes clear men who self-identity as women are not female and should not be recruited as such. This makes it fairer on the women who apply and the people who rely on a woman being in that role for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety. /4

However this new guidance also says men who change their legal status to female by obtaining a GRC can be recruited into a female role. This highlights the absurdity of a law that expects a woman to waive her need for privacy or safety simple because a man gets a certificate. /5

The new Labour Government wants to make it even easier for men to get these certificates. /6

This is why Starmer must take seriously calls to clarify that sex means biological sex in the Equality Act.

Otherwise when you next ask for a women to perform your intimate exam you might get a man with a certificate doing it. /7

This new guidance is a step in the right direction. It bars the majority of men who identity as women from getting jobs reserved for women. Most transgender males do not have a GRC. But it leaves open a loophole for a small number to access these jobs with a GRC. More progress is needed before this is truly fair on women. /8

https://fairplayforwomen.com/new-guidance-for-employers-on-women-only-jobs/

Exactly - how do you enforce the SSE when someone you suspect is male but has all documents including BC saying they are female? If you refuse them on the basis that you suspect they are male and then they sue, are you allowed to request a Dr’s sex inspection or chromosome test as part of your defence? TRAs have successfully muddied the waters. As an aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if the issue comes up with TIFs who’ve been on T but not changed their BC. I think employers are just going to continue allowing self ID for an easy life.

Women only jobs should be just that - occupied by biological women only. If I need intimate services I want a woman, not a man who acts and dresses in the way he thinks women act and dress.

There's a comment on the article about this in today's Times:

"...If you identify as a woman, should you not also identify WITH women, and respect their concerns?"

This is so spot on. If women said "we don't want childless women to offer advice or services relating to childcare", many childless women might object and try to make their case for why they might add value, but you can be damn sure they wouldn't take to the streets to aggressively protest against women with children or call for them to be punched or shot.

And if the vast majority of women with children were firm in their view that they didn't want childless women providing the services, the childless women would ultimately respect that.

It's just how women are - we are caring people who respect others and more often than not put ourselves out to accommodate others.

Trans 'women' are so unlike women it is really is a joke now that they claim to be women at all.

Their disrespect and disregard for women shows the sexism for what it is, doesn't it?

Exactly - how do you enforce the SSE when someone you suspect is male but has all documents including BC saying they are female?

There would have to be a central body, similar to bds process, to check that the women is female, and not a man with a GRC.

It would be time consuming, costly and wouldnt be needed if the government didnt issue female birth certificate needles to men.

The easiest thing would not to reissue birth certificates in the incorrect sex.

The legal and paperwork side of this is already a ludicrous mess. But women can spot a trans a mile off. We can spot someone acting suspiciously a mile off. We can spot someone up to no good a mile off. We will simply avoid engaging with or even going anywhere near trans people. What scares me is a situation where I am too old or incapacitated to avoid them or run away. Hopefully those intent on causing harm to others will be shunned by society and their behaviour firmly confirmed as anti-social and unacceptable by the vast majority of people, thus making it hard or even impossible for them to act out their desire to harm women, regardless of whether it is legal.

They already can exclude trans people with a grc if the role meets the criteria. Such jobs include working with women who have been sexually abused. What is not included is medical services as there is not an occupational reason to be female, it's simply preference - you are entitled to a chaperone.

The rules for discriminating in the workplace are very strict but quite possible if you follow the criteria (my own job is protected on a different characteristic) so if any orgs are not choosing to hire using the exception it is them not the law that is doing it if you know what I mean. 99% + of jobs should not be affected as they have no reason to have a requirement

There are also worrying cases like this where men refused GRCs by the panel go on to get them via the courts, as detailed by this tweet from StillTish:

‘This case is a man who was thrice married, had 7 kids, spent time in Jail for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life. A single judge granted him a gender recognition certificate.’

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2019/10/10/gender-recognition-certificates/

Yes and recently someone claiming to be "non binary" who was refused appealed and the refusal was overturned as had a lady passport and driving licence.

But women can spot a trans a mile off. We can spot someone acting suspiciously a mile off. We can spot someone up to no good a mile off.

I can’t always tell. There will be plenty of other women who can’t always tell either.

@Signalbox
Really ?
Have you spent time standing next to a TiM
(even a many decades post surgery, with all the paperwork in the world)
and NOT guessed ?
Really ?

It took me less than 3 seconds to guess and even DH realised in less than a minute.

500 million years of sex selection biology is not altered by paperwork

Even Lab rats know who the males and female staff are

Really? Have you spent time standing next to a TiM

I didn’t say I can never tell, I said I can’t always tell and there are plenty of examples out there of other people getting it wrong. And if a fairly well passing TW has F on his identity documents how are recruiters supposed to know that someone isn’t female? Didn’t Mridul Wadhwa say they got the position in ERCC by pretending to be female. This won’t be a unique circumstance.

My point is that the paperwork is now irrelevant as it has become so messy. But anyway, how many times have you been asked to submit a BC to get a job? Employers rarely even ask for proof of educational attainment anymore. Interviews are the standard test for eligibility and aptitude, with ID and NI number being the main follow up formalities (and more to do with practicalities like pay). And no one is going to ask someone in the ladies to produce a BC.

So the only way to stay safe is to stay alert to strange behaviour. As in time immemorial, women are expected to protect themselves rather than men being policed or forced to adjust their behaviour. Depressing but true.

I think, and I know it has been said many times before, it is because the more recent TRAs have made it quite clear that they aren't about supporting people who would like to live gender non-conforming lives.

They are about men imposing themselves on women. This is the end goal.

My solution would be that any post advertised or service advertised as women only under the SSE of the EA, part of the process of applying would be that there is a form where the applicant has to sign saying they have understood that the post / service is for women who were born female and that they confirm this is what they are. And are aware that if it is found they have lied to obtain the job services they will be sued.

Didn’t Mridul Wadhwa say they got the position in ERCC by pretending to be female.

Absolutely the opposite which is why not only MW but the management of ERCC should have been censored.

The post was advertise under the SSE of the EA and they then gave it to someone who has always been very open about being trans.

Its just bonkers that everyone accepted it.

Except of course for one brave woman - Roz Adams.

This only goes on happening because too many are complicit with enabling it, along with the full on TWAW campaigners.

Its a sign really of just how far women haven't come that so many have so meekly accepted being told that they are wrong to hang onto the biological identity.

There is no identification that reliably gives a persons sex.

That's a problem. If a company needs to employ someone who is over 18, they dont have to rely on the applicant telling the truth, or deciding that they look 18, they use birth certificate or passport. Everyone is protected.

If they want to provide and advertise a single sex service, they need to be able to employ the correct people, but there is no government issued identification that gives sex, where sex means the same for everyone.

This leaves the service provider vulnerable and users at risk.

That's why they should have to sign a declatation, recognisting that if they are found to have lied to get the job they will be sued.

I wonder if the original birth certificates of those issued new ones in their "legal" sex are actually physically destroyed or are archived somewhere.

And then of course there are hospital records.

Shameless plug for another thread the EHRC have a consultation

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5119846-let-ehrc-know-what-you-think?reply=136808792

@illinivich very well put.

And @IwantToRetire a declaration seems like a good solution. But TRAs would lobby against any such approach - or demand to able to state they are biological women.

These people already assert that they are women, were born women and are biological women. India Willoughby claims to be "indisputably female" - and even to have a cervix I believe.

TRAs believe themselves to be more female than actual women - to be better and exactly the same as real women depending on which state suits them at any given moment. So there's no language that would exclude them fully in a declaration.

I imagine they will wish to have original birth certificates destroyed and hospital records permanently altered too - to reflect that the doctors in the delivery suite 'assigned' them incorrectly. All legal traces of their maleness erased.

Unless all of this current madness is reversed, we have to accept that no one's paperwork is reliable in relation to sex.

Actually could @IwantToRetire 's declaration have something about chromosomes - you declare that you have XX chromosomes. Though I suppose you'd have to introduce a medical test and TRAs would just dispute it. It's hopeless!

The orginal birth certificates is kept, just not accessible to the public. But the government has a list of all GRC holders.

If a GRC holder wants to apply for a job that needs a DBS certificate, they can apply via a special section that is allowed to hide the fact that they have a GRC, and previous names if appropriate.

The problem with relying on people to declare that they are female at birth, is that it risks mix sex services in a way that the government wouldnt allow for age or lots of skill based employment. People dont self declare they have handling hazardous waste qualifications and everyone crosses their fingers its safe, employers have to make reasonable checks applicants have the qualifications.

But SSE are treated differently. For a start they are voluntary, the GRA and EqA isnt written clearly and there is no id that reliably states a persons sex.

It's as if SSE are purposely difficult to achieve.

We have to work on Repeal. Anything else is a waste of time and won't hold Labour's feet to the fire.

Here is MW in an interview saying they were uncertain if they would even have been hired if ERCC had known that MW was trans. Also saying colleagues were surprised when MW came out to them. Anecdotal of course and the colleagues might have just been being polite and MW might be lying.

I think MW is a great example of someone who is obviously male once you know but it's not the same kind of obvious as when you see Eddy Izzard in the queue for the ladies. I know some people say it's blindingly obvious in every single case but I am not one of those people who can always tell and I doubt I am the only one.

I think the idea of a declaration is a good one. Put it back on the applicant to behave honestly and with integrity. If they lied that would risk their registration if they were a regulated professional. I imagine that would focus the minds of those who would try and go stealth.

"I didn’t say I can never tell, I said I can’t always tell and there are plenty of examples out there of other people getting it wrong. And if a fairly well passing TW has F on his identity documents how are recruiters supposed to know that someone isn’t female?"

Not many employers check GCSE or A level grades, but if it comes to light after taking up a position, you can be sacked for lying without a chance of winning a claim for unfair dismissal.

The TRAs have done a real number convincing people that it's complex to know your own sex, let alone know others'. There are many laws that are difficult to police. There is no-one checking we haven't drunk alcohol before driving. If stopped, invasive procedures are undertaken (breath or blood tests) to confirm. If it came to it, blood tests could reveal sex, and again, despite what the TRAs say, this would not open a flood of DSD cases where there is no telling someone's sex.

The ruling states that only females and males with certificates are entitled to apply for jobs intended to be undertaken by females. This shines a light on Labour's proposal to simplify the process to get a GRC. With this ruling in mind, what process do they think is needed?!

The huge error when creating the GRA was to allow falsification of birth certificates. It would have been perfectly possible to create a certificate of “legally being considered the opposite sex for some purposes”, to be used alongside a birth certificate.

That said, such a certificate would so obviously require new and detailed information about when it counted and when it didn’t that it would have been immediately obvious it wouldn’t work. Allowing falsification of fact based documents has just obscured the fact that detailed information about when it counted and when it didn’t was still, realistically required. The duff EA makes it very clear that all a GRC creates is very complicated grey areas around rights that ought to be sex based.

Repeal is the only reasonable action at this point.

I don't think it was an error. It was on purpose.