Rejoice! For there is another consultation! (EHRC)

[ArabellaScott]

And lo, an angel came and said: it shall be completed by January the 3rd.

And a voice from on high said: Sex Matters has guidance for thee

And also: A glass of festive refreshment may help and perhaps a mince pie

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/ehrc-consults-on-code-of-practice/

https://sex-matters.org/take-action/respond-to-the-ehrc-consultation/

'The consultation is open for anyone to respond to, whether you respond as an individual or as an organisation.

• Individuals can include people who give advice, lawyers, academics, campaigners and ordinary citizens wishing to challenge service providers.
• Organisations can include service providers, associations and public bodies and organisations that give advice to others.

You should respond particularly if you are a service provider – a business, charity or public body that provides services to the public – or if you are an individual who uses services (everyone!) or an advisor. It will take you about 15 minutes to complete the survey. '

Not sticking up for the Government or the EHRC, but I think Sex Matters are wrong, and still dont seem to understand the SSE (no doubt the moran has been pontificating).

Legally self identification does not exist. I dont think either the Government or the EHRC have ever said it does, in fact recently the EHRC has repeated it isn't legal.

There is a huge difference between what Stonewall etc., have managed to persuade people and what exists in law.

The law is about people with a GRC - and intending to get one (which is the really dodgy area of course)

So, at the moment as Lady Haldane said, once a man has a GRC he is a "legal woman" and "for all purposes" can be considered the opposite sex.

However, where an organisation invokes the SSE, a GRC does NOT give a man with a GRC the right to be part of the provision of, or user of, a service correctly advertised as being SSE as per EA.

Anyone who advertises (as ERCC did) that they are invoking the SSE but then include TW with a GRC are acting illegally.

As they would be if they include those who "self identify" as the opposite sex.

It is a cruel act by the Government to tell the EHRC to write a clearly explanation of the law, when in response to the recent judicial review by FWS, the EHRC issued a statement saying that the law is muddled and hard to follow. ie re-write the EA to say the word sex means biological. (Dont think the EHRC would ever call for the repeal of th GRA).

No doubt Labour as the people who wrote how the GRA interacts with the EA, and are so smug that women can, if they are very good, invoke the SSE in limited circumstances, want to make sure the EHRC toes their line by having to put it in writing.

Far better if the EHRC stuck to their line that the law is a muddle and needs to be clarified.

All this is totally different from the much bigger problem, that most of society and the media think the Stonewall guidelines are the real ones.

And as we know from the ERCC, they may have been found guilty of bullying, but they have not been charged with falsely advertising under the SSE.

Who listens to the EHRC when Stonewall propoganda is pumped out every day by willing followers?

And as is clear, no one has or every will be sued for falsely claiming a service is women only (SSE) but they in fact include men with a GRC, or not even that.

Most laws cease to be effective when the public as a whole ignores them.

And here we have a situation where not just the public, but local government, Scottish Government, funders and some women's groups deliberately break the law.

I think that's why we - and I am looking at this as someone who will be implementing the guidance in a healthcare organisation - need clear guidance though. I don't want to have to counteract stonewall law. I just want definitive guidance that makes it clear that SSE are on the basis of biological sex.

Yep. It needs to be crystal clear and simple.to grasp. Currently we have a situation where even lawyers can't grasp obligations or responsibilities.

Part of the problem is lack of definition. This Code states that the law doesn't define what 'transsexual' means. It doesn't state what 'living as a.woman' means. Or even what 'gender ' means. The more I read it the more nonsensical and unworkable it all.seems.

However, where an organisation invokes the SSE, a GRC does NOT give a man with a GRC the right to be part of the provision of, or user of, a service correctly advertised as being SSE as per EA.

It doesn't automatically confer that right but the common law legal principle is inclusion, not exclusion and case law and guidance suggests It's a higher bar to exclude a man with a GRC, on a case by case basis.

The EHRC have definitely written guidelines before suggesting that all men who identify as women should be considered separately to other men when excluding them from a single sex space. Until Faulkner/Truss, that was their line.

The government was itself influenced by Stonewall Law, and played its part in promoting it.

House of Commons briefing paper, I can't c & p unfortunately but the issue is discussed in pages 22 and 23, among others, and shows that it was considered a matter of legal interpretation on a case by case basis how far the SSE go.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8969/CBP-8969.pdf#page22

Also the Women and Equalities "Trans Equality Report" from 2016, presided over by Maria Miller MP, contributed to by such luminaries as Mridul Wadhwa, Helen Belcher and Jess Bradley.

See page 27 and others.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf#page=7

Among other things, I told them that their lack of clear examples around sex and gender reassignment was dangerous to everyone. (To that extent I agree with the Trans Safety Network) If the EHRC take that to mean that the law is a mess and they'll have to go back to Parliament well that's fine by me.

Hope your existential crisis has resolved @ArabellaScott and you can relax and enjoy the New year goodies!

I am on chapter 4! Determined to be thorough but that may change....

The Sex Matters guidance suggests quick and straightforward ways to respond btw. Only determined pedants need slog through the whole thing.

I think they suggest 3 sections in particular to comment on.

Bumping for anyone who is looking for something thrilling to do this New Year's Eve!

No its not common law. Even Labour admitted that on occassions biological women have the right to give and accept services only from other biological women.

It is clearly set out with the example given of Rape Crisis.

What has happened is that trans activists have continually and purposefully suggest the SSE dont mean that.

The trouble is that to invoke the SSE it has to be proportionate, and guess what, what women think is proportionate is not what men in charge of funding etc., think is proporationate.

That's the issue. Which isn't even about trans rights. It is about the underlying male sexist, misogynistic society that trans culture flourishes in. Because the patriarchy says women dont matter. Therefore it is easy for TRAs to claim their rights take precedence over women's.

It is about the willingness of politicians, the media and so called charities to think that trans rights are more important.

Not forgetting that 99.9% of the population have never heard of the SSE.

I wonder why those in power have never bothered to make clear that these exists.

Not worth the effort of promoting women's rights I would suggest.

And as if by magic, it seems Baroness Falkner read my post from last night and is standing up to Labour!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5241984-britains-equalities-chief-intervenes-after-labour-insisted-tightening-law-to-protect-single-sex-spaces-would-be-unnecessary

No it's not common law.

It's the common law principle underlying the whole act. Exclusion and "discrimination" are exceptions. The common principle is one of inclusion of everyone.

What has happened is that trans activists have continually and purposefully suggest the SSE dont mean that.

I agree, but you have to include the government in "trans activists".

The EHRC themselves have previously put out guidelines stating that the circumstances to exclude all so called "trans women" from single sex spaces for women are very limited and exceptional and only on a "case by case" basis. We've been discussing this for years @IwantToRetire - did you miss the many threads where this was discussed in detail? I can link you some.

This is the wording of the EHRC guidance produced ln 2021 and updated in 2023. Self ID by the back door, via the chilling effect of it possibly being "unlawful" to exclude a male identifying as a woman if you can't fulfil an objective test of whether it is "proportionate" or a "legitimate aim" to do so. I hope the new EHRC guidance improves this.

A service provider provides single-sex services. The Equality Act allows a lawfully established separate or single-sex service provider to prevent, limit or modify people’s access on the basis of gender reassignment in some circumstances. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present will be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether or not the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

I've just completed this. Sex Matters guidance makes it straightforward and also makes me realise the whole topic is really not that difficult - single sex facilities need to be exactly that. Men can't be women, even with a piece of paper, FFS!

I was on top of this until I got to chapter 13:

Example
13.74 The organisers of a women’s fun run are developing a policy in respect of the participation of runners who are trans women. They decide to allow trans women to participate in the event. Their reasons for this are because they wish the event to be as inclusive as possible and because the event is a non-competitive event whose primary aim is to raise charitable funds.

Since trans women (without a GRC) have a (legal) sex of male, then this fun run now includes males. Therefore surely it has no grounds to discriminate against any other males who wish to join and so is an 'open category' fun run, not a 'women's fun run?

Ok, I've found this example in the Sex Matters guidance and it appears that the confusion is not mine, it is the EHRC's😃

Completed!

I hope my effort was sufficient to the task but having completed a few of these governmental consultations over the last few years (from the perspective of an individual) I'm never sure what exactly the readers of the completed consultations will take notice of and what they won't care about.

With this consultation, I actually liked the fact that there was a word limit as I felt less pressure.

Well done! Deadline looms, any stragglers!

Planning to settle in with a glass of something fortifying and get it done tonight.

Thank you for the (gentle) kick @ArabellaScott

Have completed. 😇

They are lucky they restricted it to 250 words. They would have got a novel otherwise.

Sending you ?port? for this evening.

Port! Great idea.

There's Wensleydale left, too.

See, this is how I ended up drifting off into cheese and booze induced stupor last time.

Perhaps have the port and cheese later - as a reward?