Is it just me or do the BBC keep describing the consequences of the ruling wrongly?

[MixTapeMel]

Ok so I keep seeing things like this on the BBC online (this is in an item about new guidance from the scottish government)

"The UK's highest court last week ruled the definition of a woman in the 2010 Equality Act is based on biology in a move that will have major implications for single-sex spaces and services such as public toilets and changing rooms.
It means means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces for women if "proportionate"."

Is it not the case that it is the justification for a single-sex space that has to be 'proportionate', and that TW are excluded on the basis they are men?

Is this just the BBC refusing to say that transwomen are biological men? In which case it's misleading as no 'extra' justification is needed, they are simply not allowed in a female single-sex space.

Am i correct in my thinking? The BBC are really doing my head in on this. I am going right off them.

There is no need to mention transwomen (ever again) when requiring a single sex space. As long as it is proportionate to exclude men (they have their own provision or women would be at risk of voyeurism or indecent exposure) then by default transwomen are excluded. Their gender identity (transwomen) is entirely irrelevant. They are legally and always, men.

It’s not just you. IMO it’s deliberate.

At a guess they got an intern to do the research.

They are muddling up the old guidance about when it was proportionate to have biological women only services, which meant that men with a GRC could be excluded.

The difference now (and after all quite a few politicians has said so the BBC should know) that following the ruling that sex meant biology then a person who says they are trans can only use the facilities or service of their actual sex.

The new guidelines aren't yet written. The EHRC says it will take a few weeks (or was it months).

It is really depressing to know that an institution like the BBC cant even employ someone who can do simple research.

Or even listen to the news as broadcast on the BBC where a lot of the debate has been about sex being sex, so that a trans woman has to use the male toilets.

Sign.

Agree with Ereshkigalangcleg that it’s deliberate. An attempt to push people into unwitting civil disobedience.

Even under the assumption that TIMs were generally allowed in single sex women’s spaces, the legislation was blatantly clear that it was possible to make exceptions and stick to women only.

What the ruling did make clear that no one has really been talking about is that the ruling made it clear that the if proportionate bit applies to excluding TIFs from female spaces. TIMs are automatically and always excluded with or without a GRC.

It's deliberate and you should Complain each and every time you see it happen.

TRAs have been repeating this lie all over the place - I absolutely agree that it’s deliberate.

There was a woman on News Night who just sat and lied, absolutely straight faced. The men around her just nodded along. I don't know how they are still getting away with it. Also, reducing the whole thing to toilets. Not a word about refuges, prisons, rape crisis centres etc.

I don't know how they are still getting away with it.

Its the same way Chat GPT will lie to avoid saying “I don’t know” - it sounds plausible and uses the phrases we’d expect to hear, and since most people haven’t actually read the judgment but don’t want to admit that, they just nod along like idiots and assume the person knows what they’re talking about.

I dont think it is "deliberate" it is clear, as discussed on other threads, that some if not all people at the BBC have been so captured they cant quite get to say, or even think in their head, that maybe they were wrong before, got taken in or whatever.

The example on the other thread was a female presenter earnestly saying maybe the solution to the "problem" created by the ruling was rather than for instance have single sex wards, they could be called single gender wards.

Which even if there was such a thing as a single gender category, doesn't match with the ruling that said sex in the EA means biology.

If you've spent the past 15 years pumping out this nonsense sincerely believing that what you are saying is true because you did the Stonewall training for instance, you aren't going to find it easy to say something that contradicts your past 15 years "mis-speak".

Their brains must be in a spasm of conflicting wrong think.

Have just re-read the OP.

It seems the BBC is quoting the Scottish Government.

So it should come as no surprise that they haven't got it right.

It is deliberate...

No one is saying:

Single sex spaces are proportionate and necessary to protect the dignity and safety of women, as defined by their sex. This is what the Supreme Court have confirmed.

This affects that protections given to women, to promote equality.

This affects women in hospitals, prisons, schools, not just toilets.

Women have been frightened, silenced, pushed aside, shouted down. Women have lost their jobs, been doxxed on line, threatened, been forced to lie so they could keep their jobs, been called bigots, been arrested, lost out on awards and prizes, lost the ability to gather and meet without the threat of men disrupting their gatherings, if they speak out, they are banned, re-educated, shunned, ignored, many just slink away in fear. The word woman has been removed from documents and policies across all areas of our society. Mention of the word woman, has been clarified and the sex category of men as been included in the definition of women. The message the women do not matter has been delivered repeatedly. The effect on the mental health of women is enormous.

We need journalists to report on these facts, to interview people who have been intimidated, lost their jobs, threatened with violence, all for stating that women are a sex class and the Equality Act, gives protection on that basis.

If you are a journalist and you are reading this... speak to women, ask them why this is important, ask them what this means for them.

This is doing my head in

I think it’s because it’s such a luxury middle class belief that they aren’t affected by the prospect of sharing a cell with a man

Definitely complain each time you see it. I put in a complaint for stating the same thing in this article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkx78zlm4po I was surprised when they replied to say they've removed it and added a correction!
It's misinformation like this that has caused us to get to this situation in the first place so it needs to be stopped.

As i understand it, having read the ruling, the Supreme Court ruling clarifies that the intended meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act always referred only to biological women and no other definition made sense. The Scottish Government argued that men with a gender recognition certificate counted as women in every way and therefore couldn’t be legally excluded from any women-only spaces. The Supreme Court threw that out. The judges said males with a GRC were still male under the Equality Act and if you let them in but excluded males without a certificate that would be sex discrimination against other men - especially as it is illegal to ask to see someone’s GRC. The result of the ruling is that all spaces need to be fully mixed sex or purely single (bio) sex. It is perfectly legal for any single sex spaces/services including rape counselling sessions, breastfeeding groups or lesbian social events to exclude all males. Where there is a legal obligation to provide single sex spaces (eg loos in school, prisons or changing rooms) bio males can’t use them, however they identify. I’m pretty sure this is correct but interested to know if I’ve got anything wrong.

Well done.

I think the Guardian have it wrong, too - in their editorial they wrote: "That’s why Lord Sumption's intervention mattered. A former supreme court justice, he argued that while the ruling gives service providers the legal power to exclude trans women from single-sex spaces, it doesn’t mandate it – a reminder that clear laws shouldn’t license quiet exclusions."
It's not 100% clear whether they are endorsing Sumption's argument or just saying that it is something that someone has "argued" - although if they don't think the law is unambiguous then I'm perplexed why they describe it as "clear".
It's my understanding that Sumption is wrong. But when you have someone like that (who is not very likable but has a reputation for knowing what the law is) making that kind of claim then it's not easy to persuade people. So therefore I think that some of the misinterpretation of the law might not be deliberate but might be relying on the misinformation spread by Sumption.
If Sumption was right then surely FWS would have lost their case because TW exclusion would have been at the discretion of the Scottish government.
If I am right then we should write to the Guardian and ask them to correct their editorial.
The paper also carried a letter from someone saying that the court's judgment would have no impact in rural Devon because there were no public toilets, which is either someone desperately seeking a hook on which to raise their hobbyhorse (a very worthy one which I agree with) or someone greatly misunderstanding the scope of the ruling (which doesn't just apply to toilets, let alone just public ones, and I can't believe that rural Devon lacks schools and pubs).

Yes they are as are the guardian and yes it is deliberate. It’s just the same ongoing tactic of “oh god it’s all sooo hard and confusing to tell who is a man and who is a woman how can we possibly knooowww?”

this has now morphed into “oh yes we know what the judgement said but it’s all sooooo hard and anyway something something proportionate aim and we need EHRC guidance So let’s let men keep doing what they want and ignore anyone who disagrees”

I agree the right thing to do is to complain each and every time. It's going to take a while though - I think I've seen even one of our resident GC lawyers argue that it's still fine to discriminate on the basis of gender identity (because GI is not a protected characteristic), which I'm pretty sure is not true, but then IANAL so what would I know...

I've complained too. The BBC are a disgrace with regards to this issue. Also guardian.

Thank you @Apollo441

"What the ruling did make clear that no one has really been talking about is that the ruling made it clear that the if proportionate bit applies to excluding TIFs from female spaces. TIMs are automatically and always excluded with or without a GRC." Thankyou for making that clear @NumberTheory

BBC, Guardian, Harriet Harman and others are still failing to face up to the reality of the ruling......by still talking about "proportionality" and how men with trans identities can be excluded from female spaces with good reason...the implication being that they can still access female only spaces in some circumstances.

The ruling, however, made clear that if a space is designated 'single sex', or has 'woman' on it that is what it means......no male people, even those with a GRC, may use that space.

It has been suggested that organisations could create unisex facilities in place of single sex facilities, but that this should only be applicable if there is no space for singles sex plus a unisex facility.

Some activists will now be pushing for all toilets now to be unisex so as to get around the ruling and preserve the notion that men are women if they "feel" like it..but it has been made clear doing so could bring about legal challenges from those claiming sex discrimination. ( from people who want single sex facilities)

I agree with PPs that it’s purposeful confusion.

There was a correction footnote on an article the other day so they know.

The BBC does have a bit of form for putting out the message they want, and then quietly putting a 'whoops, sorry, misinformation' note a day or so later. Everyone's read it by then and they got over the influencing they wanted to achieve, and they can then put their 'oops we did it again' note on which covers arses without anyone much seeing it or realising they were misinformed.

This lot should not be publicly funded. The licence should have gone bloody years ago.

But the judgment is in very clear language and publicly available and this Hail Mary attempt to try and enforce yet more Stonewall law instead of real law is not going to work.

Proportional - separate men and women facilities or resources were provided.

End of.