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/

I thought the idea is they close the loop using the confidential service. It's there so that trans people can tell all past names without their employer finding out

That is the loophole though as it requires the trans person to contact the db's service and tell them there real name. They should have to fill the forms in the same as everyone else otherwise it's open to exploitation by bad faith actors

Not to mention the fact that there is no good reason why anyone should be able to conceal previous names or unspent convictions simply because they have officially "changed gender", without any other factors being in play.

This has been the case for a long time and there are many threads here about it.

KPSS did some work on it and produced this report a couple of years ago.

https://kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

"The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. These are exceptional rights that are only granted to individuals from this group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check will be accurate or complete.

These exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. This right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else: disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names the applicant has used."

If you're assuming reading this that it only applies to the small number of males with a GRC, think again. You only need to provide your passport or driving licence as identification to use the confidential service. It's a huge loophole in safeguarding.

Do you want to start one.

Am in a rush just now.

But if not I'll do it later.

I had never heard of this "sensitive" clause. Had always assumed it only happened if a trans application "failed" to provide accurate details.

It had never occured to me that employers - let alone the NHS - would help cover up.

No, it's been in place for years. Originally probably was supposed to have applied only to GRC holders, but you know, scope creep.

I wonder how many people are aware of it, including employers.

I have for various reasons seen any number of job application packs from women's support services in recent years.

Not one of them has ever made mention of this clause, even those that advertise as being trans inclusive.

Let alone in a job ad.

I wonder why this wasn't covered in the EHRC Discriminatory Jobs guidelines, ie how to advertise within the existing frame work for biolgocial women and not let the sensitive clause undermine it.

You only need to provide your passport or driving licence as identification to use the confidential service. It's a huge loophole in safeguarding.

But the purpose of a DBS isn't to check on someone's gender identity or GRC but to check convictions etc..

And I thought had to list convictions even if spent.

So if someone had a conviction as a man, but you then cant refer to them as having been a man how do you refer to their past convictions?

It's well worth reading the KPSS report I linked.

I have started a new thread about this, but made the title a question as didn't want the thread to be pulled before anyone has a chance to reply.

Have included the link to the KPSS report.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5205574-does-thedbs-sensitve-application-route-for-trans-applicants-undermines-the-value-of-a-dbs-check-and-pose-a-safeguarding-issue

Yep, there would have been lots on Mumsnet at the time of making the appt, that’s where I heard it. It was widely known including by everyone actually involved in the hiring that mridhul was trans, and whatever mridhul may have said in some interview doesn’t change that one bit.