We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition - EHRC

[IwantToRetire]

“The central issue raised by this appeal is how ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are defined in the Equality Act 2010.

“On that point, our position is that when Parliament passed the Equality Act, it intended those who have acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to be treated as their certified sex. So a trans woman with a GRC is legally recognised as a woman under the Equality Act, and a trans man with a GRC is legally recognised as a man.

“We look forward to the Supreme Court’s judgment providing an authoritative interpretation of the existing law in this area.”

“We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition.

“It creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people. These difficulties include the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single sex spaces, and in the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations. We think clarity is important to everybody affected by these issues properly understanding and exercising their rights.

“It is unlikely that Parliament appreciated these consequences when it passed the Equality Act, and they have become more serious with societal change since that time.

“As the equality regulator, we deem this to be a wholly unsatisfactory situation, which Parliament should address with urgency.

“In April last year we provided advice on clarifying the definition of ‘sex’, in response to a request from the then Minister for Women and Equalities. It is our view that the arguments at the heart of this case once again highlight the importance of Parliament giving careful consideration to amending the Equality Act 2010 and the current balance of rights under the Act.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-intervention-women-scotland-supreme-court-appeal

(This is in relation to forthcoming FWS court case, but thought as it is a statment from the EHRC, those not on that thread would be interested to read this. But always find it strange that all these people making all these statements never refer to why the SSE were written, ie because they did intend those with a GRC to be taken as being "legally" the other sex.)

If they lose, there is no such thing as sex in the biological sense. Technically, we're already at that point I assume, given this is an appeal. With Labour on the cusp of making GRCs easier to obtain, this case couldn't be more important.

It's been managed up to now as regards policy etc on the "sex fudge" basis, as @ArabellaScott calls it. It will be interesting to hear all the legal arguments from the various parties.

If they lose then we will see exactly how committed all politicians are to women's rights and what they mean by "halving VAWG"

<waits>

Yep. I like that phrase a lot.

It has a certain onomatopoeiac effect of highlighting that it's currently a grim situationv for single sex spaces, in both senses of the word grim.

It will be interesting to hear all the legal arguments from the various parties.

Totally agree. There are some very competent legal folk on the side of common sense. Hopefully enough of them to tip the balance this time, by drawing out the nonsense within the current situation.

Yes particularly looking forward to seeing Ben Cooper KC in action!

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · Yesterday 22:17

“A person being searched can object to being searched by any officer; this officer will be replaced by another member of the team to conduct the search in their place. This is regularly done in practice for many reasons, such as a way to de-escalate conflict.”

I thought that other Police forces had banned it altogether? To be honest, perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can imagine that a Police officer so replaced might complain that a hate crime has been perpetrated.

I've just bumped the Let's Go Back to 2007 thread as well as linking it here. The collected resources on it really do show how we got here.

They are not remotely committed to protecting the privacy, dignity and safety of women. Anything they say is just lip service. The vast majority can’t be bothered to care about women. Too many of them actively relish gaslighting and disparaging women. Only a tiny fraction have any even the slightest interest in protecting women.

The OP seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the single sex exceptions.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Seems many have failed to read the OP and the point I was making.

So one more time, and as has already been said here and on numerous other threads (and in fact as said by EHRC)

If the GRA had not been intended to create the concept of someone being a "legal sex" as opposed to an actual biological sex, there would be no need to SSE.

It is BECAUSE those drafting the changes to the EA to allow for those with a GRC to be treated as though they were through a certificate the same as those born a sex, that the SSE had to be created.

This needs to be spelled out, that for all those arguing that the then Government (Labour) never intended legal sex to be the same as biological sex, in fact as both the EHRC and as I quoted Lady Haldane, have interpreted the law, FOR ALL PURPOSES those with a GRC are legally entitled to be seen as the opposite sex to the one they are born.

And because this the intention, as a very generous (sarcasm) the queer informed writers of the EA thought, goodness me, maybe, just maybe there are occassions (such as Rape Crisis Centres) that biological women would (and we have to admit they may even be entitled) be allowed to exclude "legal women" with a GRC.

This is what this court case is about. Did or does the law as written, mean that "legal women" are women.

So whether you or I, or the EHRC (please re-read their comments in the OP) think this is wrong, the fact that the SSE were written is because those writing about the protected characteristic of sex ACCEPTED (and wanted) those with a GRC to be taken as having actually changed sex.

This is why some of us are questioning how this court case can change written law.

If a GRC was not intended to mean someone became legally the other sex, then there would be no need for SSE, because sex would still mean, and only mean, biology.

None of us may want this to be the case, but that is what it is.

FWS are using the court system to challenge this because it is not only wrong, but as has become increasingly clear, impacting on women's sex based rights. So even if they win, will the law be re-written?

Others chose to petiton Parliament, and as a result there was a "Westminster Hall" (actually a small committee room) where various MPs discussed it.

The outcome of that was that the then Government said they would do more work on clarifying the law.

This is what Kemi Badenoch was doing up until the moment the Sunak called a snap election. If he hadn't for all we know by know she would have presented to the HoC by now a solution to the wording of the EA. (I doubt she would have attempted to change the GRA)

re Kemi Badenoch and clarifying the EA.

It is really, really disappointing that the Tories have still not put forward any of theirMPs to sit on the Women and Equalities Committee. Its a bit of an insult to women and equalities that they haven't.

But also for anyone who doesn't remember or doesn't know, it was the Women and Equalities Committee back in 2018(?) who set out the need to make the GRA simpler, ie bring in self id. They had prioritiesed consulting with the LGBT community, rather than any other group, let alone women. And based on that put changing the GRA as the first thing they would undertake. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9079/

So I have no doubt that with Labour in control of this committee they could do this again, and wont bother with anything as democratic as a consultation, and just steam roll through changes to the GRC to make self id easier.

Sadly I think if they did a consultation on this now, with more specific questions about how self id etc., would impact on women, more members of the public would prioritise trans rights over women's rights. Because despite publicity about really extreme examples of how wrong this can be, ie TW in women's prisons etc., the brainwashing of the public has been so sucessful, that the be kind motive would come into play.

If the GRA had not been intended to create the concept of someone being a "legal sex" as opposed to an actual biological sex, there would be no need to SSE.

This is not true and I'm not sure why you keep misrepresenting it. Single sex exceptions are needed because single sex spaces are needed. They don't revolve around trans issues.

If there were no single sex exceptions it wouldn't be possible to have female only anything. Men would be able to attend women's breastfeeding groups just because they fancied it.

This is why some of us are questioning how this court case can change written law.

FWS are using the court system to challenge this because it is not only wrong, but as has become increasingly clear, impacting on women's sex based rights. So even if they win, will the law be re-written?

The court case cannot change the law and if FWS win the law does not need to be re-written.

If FWS win it will mean that the Equality Act has always referred to sex as a biological term. It would mean Lady Haldane misinterpreted the legislation.

Example: a women-only support unit for women who have experienced domestic or sexual violence can be set up, even if there is no parallel men-only unit because of insufficient demand.

Under the Equality Act the only way that women only rape crisis or DV support can exist is because of the single sex exceptions. They are not just about trans people.

This web page explains that there is a SSE that allows for males to be excluded from female only spaces and a SSE that allows for exclusion on the basis of gender reassignment. I'm wondering if this is why we are misunderstanding each other because it's possible we are talking about different aspects of the EA.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)
The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment
The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

It's a complete mess, isn't it. Unless this person has a GRC they are not classed as a "woman" if male. They are a man under the EA. Otherwise it could perhaps mean a woman who identifies as a man if they think she might make women think they are in the presence of a man?

Schedule 3, paragraph 28 is the SSE that allows for discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. It is specific to the issue of trans identified people accessing spaces of the opposite sex...

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/paragraph/28

As far as I understand it, a win for FWS would mean that a) sex in the EA is biological sex and b) having a GRC that says something different has no impact on this.

In other words it ringfences sex and relevant and immutable, as far as the law is concerned i.e. that, as BetsyM00 says above....

If FWS win it will mean that the Equality Act has always referred to sex as a biological term. It would mean Lady Haldane misinterpreted the legislation

At the moment, it is a complete mess.

This web page explains that there is a SSE that allows for males to be excluded from female only spaces and a SSE that allows for exclusion on the basis of gender reassignment.

Unfortunately this only works if sex is clarified to be as per a (hopeful) FWS win. Otherwise it's still a complete mess because any male who has a GRC saying female would no longer be a male in the eyes of the law. So yes, SSEs are in there but are pointless if you can identify your way in to them via a GRC.

To add, I'm aware that there are parts of the EA that say a GRC has no impact but as far as I'm aware it's the Haldene judgement that turned that in to even more of a mess than it was before.

Can I just ask, if FWS win (I so hope they do), what happens to single sex women's toilets? I can't see transwomen not accessing these spaces and will/can anything be done to enforce the EA in these situations?

I can't see transwomen not accessing these spaces and will/can anything be done to enforce the EA in these situations?

Each service provider would be responsible for enforcing their own service which is how things currently stand. So making it clear that toilets are separated by sex. But I agree that it’s unlikely to make much of a difference in relation to toilets. People will go where they please.

I imagine that that's going to take a long time to unpick in all the different organisations where it's muddled.

The law being stable and clear is a good start point.

What I'm hoping we'll see as a next step is public sector organisations being reminded of the Nolan principles.

Maya Forstater secured the legal protection to not hold the belief that we all have a gender identity when she won her case:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?t=mWrKEh2aY1JpR5IyqtJlhQ&s=19

Although the main publicity was about her "gender critical belief" that sex is immutable, it's just a way to turn reality into something that can be used in law. As far as I understand it, it turns the reality of biological sex into a philosophical belief in the same way that a court would never be able to rule that it's true that the earth is a globe. If flat earth activists went on a rampage insisting that we all accepted the earth was flat (shipping and aeroplane routes changed etc), courts would presumably only have the same option at their disposal i.e. ruling that globe earth belief is protected in law. Obviously it's never going to get that far. But here we are with the reality of sex.

The Nolan principles say that public sector organisations and their staff can't promote personal beliefs. So if sex immutability is a belief and the idea that we all have a gender identity is a belief that's stalemate. However, if it's bloody obvious that one is a fact and the other is a belief, that's a game changer IMO. And by bloody obvious I mean that biological sex is an observable reality. Science understands DSDs better than in the past too - every single one is sex-specific. There is no crossover and no such thing as intersex. Every human is either male or female, regardless of DSDs or not.

Hopefully this judgement will land on the right side of sensible and that will give organisations like schools and hospitals the kick up the bum that they need to stop promoting this belief and stop acting as if it's more important than sex.

In the meantime, hopefully more people will gain an understanding of what autogynophilia is.

Once we're no longer seeing gender identity belief promoted everywhere - because public sector organisations recognise it's unlawful under the Nolan principles - and the public recognises the dangers of self-ID in women's spaces, I hope we'll get a similar awareness as we have now about paedophiles. TW will have to accept that there is no way of telling the AGPs from the non-AGPs and will need to stay out of women's spaces because of this.

But it's going to be a long journey I think.

Edited to correct several typos.

Apologies if this link has already been added...

It looks like the Scottish government wants to make itself look daft again:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/23/equality-law-applies-to-pregnant-men-snp-supreme-court/

(This isn't behind a paywall ATM)

They thought it would only affect a tiny number of people.

The trans activist organisations claimed even in the late 90s that there were "30,000 transsexuals" in the U.K. so in spite of the figure presented to parliament (around 5k of both sexes) they already knew it would apply to more people (mostly men) than that.

It's point 3.1 of this 1996 report.

3.1 If we take the figure of 30,000 transsexuals in Britain6, we would expect there to be a minimum of 20 TS prisoners in the UK7. Transsexuals are believed to have the largest percentage of involvement in sex work of any UK community. Over half of Charing Cross Hospital's m-to-f transsexual clients had criminal records, though not all of these would have been in custody. We have talked to 18 prisoners/ex-prisoners already. Therefore we say 'minimum', because abused minorities are usually disproportionately represented in prison. There is clearly a great deal of self-censoring from transsexuals in prison; we know of no short term transsexual prisoners, in spite of the fact that most transsexuals are arrested for minor offences like prostitution. Either they are keeping quiet about their status, or the prison service is telling them to be silent. We can therefore only find out useful information from long-term prisoners.

web.archive.org/web/20060712015421/www.pfc.org.uk:80/legal/tsprison.htm

As @PencilsInSpace put it on the Let's Go Back to 2007 thread:

Wooaahh! This was back in 1996 when they were otherwise still telling the government there were 5000. What the fuck!