NEU defy the Supreme court

[ArabellaScott]

Womens conference to welcome males who identify as women.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/neu-says-its-national-womens-conference-will-welcome-trans-women

Be interesting to see.what the EHRC make of that.

Good question because on another thread the WI Constitution was posted. It said yes to women and trans women and no to cross dressers. Also no to men. How do they differentiate legally between the bio male subgroups there?

ETA and obvs trans men were ignored as usual but presumably they are allowed as women?

no, as a send teacher I couldn’t make head nor tail.

We are going to see hyperbole on steroids for some time

it’s apparently what willyboy has organised as part of the process 🤷🏻‍♀️

solidarity pissing for £5 lady tickets

Oh, how I hope he's joking.

I think this is right
People are conflating protected characteristics with the single sex exemption. The only one of the protected characteristics which has that extra provision to organise groups services and events just for those with that characteristic is sex. The 'gender reassignment is a protected characteristic' is a red herring- this protects those from discrimination but there's no exemption here.

Surely you can organise an event restricted to any group of people as long as that group doesn't relate to one of the protected characteristics. It's not discrimination if I organise an event restricted to Doctor Who fans or people with PhDs.

For these people "woman" means something different from what it means in the Equality Act. Are they not perfectly entitled to restrict things to that group? If they called the same group "squibbles" or whatever then it would be perfectly fine to have an event where only squibbles were invited. The fact that the two senses of "woman" are homophonous doesn't change the fact that it essentially has two different meanings at this point.

It would be discriminatory to let both transmen and transwomen into a "woman's" event, because you then are discriminating on the basis of sex in a non-approved manner (all females can come but only some males).

@JeremiahBullfrog
In Tasmania it has been ruled that women may not exclude men from any meeting in case they identify as women.

A woman has been in legal battles for 3 years to set up a female only dating app.

If the SC ruling had gone the other way, female only lesbian events would have been illegal in the UK

But in this case it does relate to protected characteristics.

Just like the B&B over a decade ago couldn't restrict entry to heterosexual couples only.

Are you talking about Sal.Grover?

Sorry only just had time to catch up on this thread from when I posted last night.

I dont want to repeat the whole post I made, but just to be clear, the SSE no longer apply or have any relevance.

This is because the Court judgement was if you use the word sex it is about biology.

The only hurdle now is not the SSE, but the SSS. ie you have to prove that a single sex service is a legitimate means of achieving your goals.

If you want to hold an event or sevice for women and for trans women the Court Judgement means it is no longe a SSS (single sex service).

So all this discussion is irrelevant.

But I did quickly see someone had talked about say only targetting a particulat age group. As over 50s clubs etc., are regularly advertised there must be in as in the SSS something about how it is a proportionate measure to achieve an aim.

And suspect that after the EHRC has re-written their guidelines they may have an example of how it is proporationate to achieve a particular aim so that an event of service is open to both women and TW. But as the law does not recognised self identity it may turn out to be the exact opposite of the now redundant SSE ie instead of a clause saying men with a GRC are not included, the new one might say only men with a GRC can be part of a women and trans women event, because the Protected Characteristic in Gender Resassignment (not gender identity).

If this happened I think TW will be really please and it might make it clearer assumng some service providers will wants this, that it is clearly advertises as Women and TW with a GRC.

(ie the EHRC cannot write guidelines based on Stonewall Law, but only on the Law as passed by Government and amended by a Court.)

You don't need a GRC to have the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment though? You just need to be undergoing, or even just proposing to undergo the process of reassigning your sex "by changing physiological or other attributes of sex". Which is basically self-id.

GRCs became loo roll on Wednesday.
They no longer change sex for equality law
as was made abundantly clear in the judgement

only females are women
only males are men

GRCs were never relevant anyway because no one could ask to see one.

GRC allow the holder to have a birth certificate in their aquired sex. So on paper, there is no discrepancy in id - passports and birth certificates match, and all can be in the same name. Without a GRC the birth certificate is the tell (on paper) that a transition has taken place.

In practice, the transition is more obvious with and without a GRC. But i wonder if organisations supportive of trans ideology will pretend its impossible to know? So say they are providing single sex services but just not checking id?

This could backfire for them, though. As if the GRC is the block to providing SSE, it could have to be changed.

But even then, who insists on seeing a birth certificate instead of a passport or driving licence?

As if the GRC is the block to providing SSE, it could have to be changed.

You REALLY need to read the ruling.
Single Sex means exactly that.
Single sex facilities CANNOT call themselves that if they admit the other sex.
NO MATTER what bits of paper those people have

GRCs do not change sex for the purposes of Equality legislation.
Its literally what the judges said.

I have read and understood the ruling, so you dont need to speak like that to me.

What im talking about is the practicalities dealing with organisations who are supportive of trans ideology.

What if they say that its impossible to determine a persons sex? If a man takes a job, denies he's male and has all of his id - birth certificate, passport, even his qualifications are in the same name, and the company is supportive, what happens then?

Its never been possible to change sex, but the GRA does allow men, on paper, to hide their sex. And gives service providers an excuse to pretend they cant possible know a man is a man.

If court cases occur because of this, wouldnt is become clear that the GRA is a barrier to SSE in practice?

Passports and driving licences have never been proof of sex, but a birth certificate has. And thats what the GRA allows.

The ruling was not about representation, but about claifying the meaning and intention of the law and its reach.

Yes, but none of it means you are a woman if you are not. Gender re-assignment is a conceptual category which basically gives you the same sorts of protections from violence and discrimination in civic situations, as other groups. It does not give you the rights or protections afforded to women as a defined category of person, in the same way it does not give you disability rights or maternity protections.

Aside from hiding the fact that they had ever been a man the other major reason for the GRA was to allow the fiction that a man had changed sex so he could marry another man. With equal marriage this is no longer necessary.

@illinivich
Nobody will have their A level certificates in their new name
Its highly unlikely that their degree records will be in their new name

and the idea that women do not know when they are in the presence of men is laughable

which is the sticking point that will be challenging to navigate in schools regarding children and their parents (and teachers) who are completely convinced that these children are born in the wrong body.

Wrt to representation, I was referring to the current complaints from TRA that no trans people were able to intervene in the case.

Stonewall and other pro tans groups
CHOSE NOT TO INTERVENE

Scottish Government were backed up by Amnesty.
No other groups applied

LWS were backed up by Sex Matters and LGBA
Other groups stepped aside for them