GEO 'trans people in the uk' advice from 2018 - legally sound?

[NC7]

My workplace has a very active trans and non-binary staff network. They occasionally post statements and demands. A couple of years ago, they included the link below to a 2018 GEO (= Government Equalities Office) leaflet which implies that it is never lawful to exclude trans-identified people from single-sex provision and that this has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Is this claim still valid? If not, why does the link still work?

Is the GEO some sort of legal arbiter? In my view, the document also conflates 'has protected characteristic of gender reassignment' and 'has a GRC'. I would be grateful for views or advice.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

This document relates to consultation on the amendment of the Gender Recognition Act to self ID. The proposed an amendments were abandoned after consultation.

This document is seven years old, and has no basis in law.

Direct them to the EHRC website.

I think this factsheet is wrong.

In the FWS case, both sides accept that someone without a GRC remains their natal sex, and so should not access services or spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

Even those with a GRC can be excluded from a single sex service or space if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Stonewall have argued it should be case by case - but this implies it would depend on the specific person with a GRC. This is completely unworkable, and also doesn't give any certainty to everyone else who then doesn't know whether they are accessing something that is single sex or mixed sex.

I would argue that if there is no detriment to allowing someone with a GRC (i.e. someone of the opposite sex) in to your single sex space or service, then there is no need for it to be single sex in the first place. A piece of paper doesn't change anything for all the other users.

Case by case refers to situations, not individual people. So women-only changing rooms are an example of a situation where it is fine to exclude trans-identifying men. Stonewall have misled organisations with its advice and interpretation (again).

I hope this doesn't sound flip but surely given the number of articles in the news they must be aware, as even the Government says it is so, that the provision of single sex services is allowed and can be found by googling Single Sex Exemptions.

And the court cases.

And statements by the EHRC.

Whole organisations are funded on the basis of the provision of single sex services, and dont after every phone call from a women who has suffered male violence, ask does she qualify. The provision of single sex provision is based on being proportionate. and the act quotes the example of Rape Crisis Centres as being one that is.

I am sure there are links to all of this on any number of threads on FWR.

Sorry didn't see this.

But sums up in fewer words what I was trying to say.

I don't disagree with any of what has been said - thank you - but my question is, if this advice is outdated and misleading, why is it still up? I believe the people who are promoting this misleading link are doing this strategically. Should I write to the GEO to complain?

Apologies.

Based on the paragraph about single sex services it seems to be as it has been since the GRA impact as posted above ie proportionate. No mention of case by case method.

Quote:

There will be no change to the provision of women-only spaces and services

The Government is clear that there will be no change to the Equality Act 2010, which allows service providers to offer separate services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria.

These services can treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently, or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Importantly, a service provider’s starting point should be to treat a trans person in the gender they identify with, and to allow them to access services for that gender unless by doing so they would be unable to provide that service to other service users. This means it can’t be a blanket ban, or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis.

For example a female only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the trans person. This has been the law since 2010 and will not change.

The problem or deliberate misunderstanding is the use of the phrase case by case basis.

But as Tallisker said, this isn't about indiduals, but about a type of service. And they have illustrated what they mean by referring to a service not one individual at a time.

But if you think the wording misleading or open to misinterpretation and you feel able to do it, then yes do write.

In fact now could not be a better moment when even the EHRC has said current wording is confusing.

Just coming back to say have had time to check other guidances from Government and EHRC. None of them use the phrase "case by case".

eg in the EA itself the wording is all about the provision of a service as a whole, not by judging each individual situation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Similarly the EHRC who talk about a type of service or support (although I find their writing style confusing) https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

So agree that the statement on the Government web site is odd. I dont think the phrase cases by case describes what is actually meant, and as OP said is open to misinterpretation.

For example a female only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the trans person. This has been the law since 2010 and will not change.

Sorry, I struggle with pdfs on the phone.

If they know that this is the case, why did ERCC not only insist that it was not, but also refuse to signpost females victims to Beira's Place?

Because reasons

If they know that this is the case, why did ERCC not only insist that it was not, but also refuse to signpost females victims to Beira's Place?

Because not only the SNP but most of the charity and community sector in Scotland had been and still is totally captured by Stonewall type misinformation. Or rather they used this false guidance to fulfil the political agenda of getting women to accept they had no rights.

That's all it was. People who had those beliefs, or were ready to adopt them to keep their job / funding were quite happy to go along with the lie.

Ironically the Lady Haldane ruling that didnt support FWS, did confirm / affirm that the current law is that Single Sex Services are legal and permitted.

What happened in Scotland (and other parts of the UK) is the same as if somehow people with decision making positions suddenly started saying to get money, to be recognised, to be "legitimate", organisations must publicly profess committment to our cult.

And maybe we weren't all alert, or rather that it crept in so quietly, that is was (almost) too late to uncapture all the women's groups who had been captured by the trans (cult) agenda.

Not forgetting, and more importantly, all the women who were in need ot support and advice in a single sex service who were let down, or worse denied services they desparately needed.

If you were to make a film, it would be a bit like "they walk amongst us" or some such story. Here you are, working in as part of a women only service provider, just getting on with your job, and then out of nowhere a manager, or a trustee, or a politician who holds the purse strings, starts intoning mantras at you about how TWAW. And to keep your job, get your money you must agree.

It makes you realise who easily it could be for any cult, that gets into positions of power and influence, can start dictating the terms under which you can continue to live the life you thought you had a right too.

Look what has happened in countries where people with fundamentalist religious beliefs (including Christianity) get into power. Or as an extreme example the Nazi party.

And as we also know from the trans takeover, the number of women who believed and still believe that TWAW.

There is another problem with this guidance and that is that the guidance conflates ‘has a GRC’ with ‘has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment’. There is no way to gatekeep the second, as I would have that characteristic the second I utter ‘I am transgender’ - or maybe not even this is necessary.

My point is that a male without a GRC remains a male in the law in all circumstances and has no business in female facilities, ever. This might be different for a male with a GRC but the guidance does not make this clear. Therefore, I believe it needs to be taken down urgently. If I write to the GEO, will I be taken seriously? (I am not a lawyer, just a pissed off woman.)

I believe it needs to be taken down urgently. If I write to the GEO, will I be taken seriously? (I am not a lawyer, just a pissed off woman.)

But in a way that is to your advantage.

If you as someone reading it can spot the errors then they should change it. You can provide links to the guidance in the Act itself and to the EHRC.

And if they dont respond or correct, email the EHRC who the Government have instructed to write clear guidance, that the Government itself is supplying incorrect information. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-statement-examples-incorrect-single-sex-spaces-and-gender-self

And if all else fails send an email to the Telegraph, Daily Mail, saying Government Office is providing incorrect information.

If they write an article, even a short one, it might get looked at.

Or maybe Kemi Badenoch would like to take it up?!