Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Britain's equalities chief intervenes after Labour insisted tightening law to protect single-sex spaces would be unnecessary

32 replies

IwantToRetire · 31/12/2024 23:13

Britain's equalities watchdog has intervened after Labour insisted that tightening the law to protect single-sex spaces would be unnecessary.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has demanded to see the transgender policies of hundreds of public bodies after concerns about them were dismissed by ministers.

Baroness Falkner, chairman of the EHRC, said it would examine these and decide whether the Equality Act – which allows organisations to restrict access to women-only spaces such as bathrooms to those born female – is being followed correctly.

Article continues at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14226447/Britains-equalities-chief-intervene-Labour-single-sex-spaces.html

Hope we can trust the DM is an accurate report.

Late last night I posted on another thread that the EHRC should stand up to Labour who continue to claim that the SSE are enough, and women should be grateful, that even though they prioritise TW they have allowed biological women a small concession!

Baroness Falkner is another women who could also have been named woman of the year, standing up to the trans bullies and now Labour!

Britain's equalities chief intervenes on single-sex spaces

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has demanded to see the transgender policies of hundreds of public bodies after concerns about them were dismissed by ministers.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14226447/Britains-equalities-chief-intervene-Labour-single-sex-spaces.html

OP posts:

Bodeganights · 02/01/2025 13:24

EvelynBeatrice · 01/01/2025 10:17

The judgement ( expected soon) in the For Women Scotland case recently heard at the Supreme Court - have a Google - will impact this question. I think it’s being ignored here because for some reason posters think it will only affect Scottish law - it won’t. The court are looking at both the U.K. wide Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act and the statutory definitions of woman etc.

Eh? It was live streamed and there were threads following it.

On a side note thanks to all of you who watched and updated the threads.

We sure as fuck aren't ignoring it.

ellenback21 · 02/01/2025 14:26

illinivich · 01/01/2025 09:05

The government seems to be blind to the reality of what is happening.

SSE are not mandatory because its not always necessary or practical to provide them. But very often when SSE are not being provided, gendered services or opportunities are given instead. And crucially providers are using sex language to advertise them. For example, when i go into a changing room advised as women only, i dont know what the providers definition of women is.

If SSE are not necessary or practical in these situations, how are gendered services? If the argument is that its difficult to police sex segregated services, surely its even harder to police gendered segregated services?

Also, service providers cannot just make up a protected characteristic and ignore the impact of that new characteristic on legally protected characteristics. They seem to be assuming everyone has a gender or that they can include gender and sex into one new characteristics.

This is the policy for a group of leisure centres local to me:

Please use the changing rooms and toilets that align with your gender identity and presentation. If you identify as one gender and present as another, please talk to our manager first so that we can agree on the best approach.
If you are non-binary, this might mean using gender-neutral or accessible facilities, or using a combination of different facilities. We won’t ask you to use the accessible toilets or changing rooms but you are welcome to do so.

Honestly, why not just label every facility 'mixed sex' with an additional label for the accessible facilities of 'for disabled or able-bodied folk' and so be honest about what is being offered?

Grammarnut · 03/01/2025 12:06

Brainworm · 01/01/2025 13:55

Typically, the legitimate aims that underpin provision of SS services are:

⁃	Privacy and Dignity- where bodies are exposed and/or intimate care provided
⁃	Safety - protecting certain groups where the context presents risk
⁃	Health and Well-being - addressing specific needs that may be better met in a single-sex environment
⁃	Effectiveness of Service - where provision is more effective if organised by sex

When thinking about sex and gender in relation to the above, it is difficult to think it’s f a single reason as to why males with a trans identity should be included in a single sex provision for females. I think all of the above could provide a legitimate aim for providing a trans specific service/provision, but there is a significant error in reasoning to think the solution is to include male trans people in provision for females. The only way this would make sense is to consider them female - which Labour are admitting they are not.

Exceptions to single-sex provision should be to allow transwomen in - this should be a rare to non-existent event IMHO. The current situation is that by default TiMs are allowed in unless specifically excluded, thus prioritising men over women.

Imnobody4 · 09/01/2025 12:03

Question asked by Claire Coutinho Shadow Equalities

https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1877090077144146072?t=ASSm69isG3l5XdtSGRw1jg&s=19

The Government dragged its heels on publishing the data from our bad guidance consultation on single sex spaces for MONTHS, only publishing it after we repeatedly pushed them to do so.

Now they admit that rather than the 400 responses they told us about, there were actually 3,272 submissions from the public. That means 88% were ruled out.

Worse still, the Government have shared just 42 responses - that’s 1% - with the EHRC. Tonight I have asked them to publish all submissions and share them with the EHRC.

People who are putting forward bad guidance on single-sex spaces and services include the police, NHS Trusts and charities that advise schools. They are putting women and girls at risk of harm.

We deserve a full picture and the people who submitted evidence in good faith deserve their testimony to be looked at properly.

@bphillipsonMP must publish the evidence now.

x.com

https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1877090077144146072?s=19&t=ASSm69isG3l5XdtSGRw1jg

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/01/2025 12:29

Bridget Philipson is truly awful, and out of her depth.

UtopiaPlanitia · 09/01/2025 23:33

How are Dodds and Co defining 'bot submission', I wonder?

That seems an awfully brisk way of dismissing the views of 88% of the people who contributed to an official consultation.

It’s become the latest thing for people to describe what they don’t agree with or don’t like as 'bots' these days. It feels like bots are the new boogeyman.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/01/2025 23:55

That seems an awfully brisk way of dismissing the views of 88% of the people who contributed to an official consultation.

It does. Reminescent of Edward Lord's management of the City of London Corporation consultation which included Hampstead swimming ponds.

Flip

1 2