Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/HeadWarriorTWM/status/1915853104421167211?t=qbUrcHVdtPyqVB1uZ5depA&s=19

And just to point out, despite all the wailing, gnashing of teeth, violent threats towards women and hyperbolic tantrums about leaving the country, the law on this hasn't actually changed. The Equality Act remains what it was intended to be. It has simply been clarified, and I'm glad that the EHRC has moved swiftly to back that up.

All us terves were correct about the Equality Act all along (which we knew, because we'd bothered to read it AND it should have been obvious from the fact that we kept winning discrimination cases, etc).

If only TRAs had had the time or inclination to both read and listen in the first place instead of hyperbolic hating, gaslighting, whining about misgendering & pronoun policing, smearing women as Nazi bigots, telling us to die in grease fires and lying about both us and the law, they might have had time of their own to comply with the law and sort out third spaces or campaign to get men to be more accepting of gender non-conforming men.

But no, instead, all time spent directing hate at women who dared to talk about their own legal rights, and toxifying & polarising the situation to the ridiculous and frankly abhorrent degree we see today, as well as attempting to change the actual law for other groups in society completely undemocratically, outside the scrutiny of Parliament & the public. For this, activists used a combination of stealth and threats I have no empathy left to give them, frankly. They didn't bother with any of that for mere women or care how we might have felt. We were expected to meekly comply and roll over. Well, you reap what you sow, I'm afraid.

All of this could have been avoided in the first place if members of the genderist lobby had behaved like decent human beings who actually understood that "equality, diversity, inclusion" refers to everyone else in society as well as themselves, and that women have their own needs (as we have done throughout history) and every right to continue to have them met under our country's equality legislation. TRAs chose "no debate", lies and threats instead.

Years of being on the receiving end of spite and “enjoy your erasure” aggression from TRAs, together with gaslighting from the authorities have rather worn down what was once women’s sympathy.

Sorry no time to read all the thread, and now to late, but based on the link provided (thanks to whoever posted it) I dont think that they have done this so quickly is a surprise.

The EHRC had already given the Government new guidelines based on clarify SSE etc., and said that GRC should be "disapplied". Which effectively the court ruling did.

So had obviously worked out what that would be in practice and (as many people have pointed out) in terms of general discussions it always comes down to toilets!

From the first page just because the Court is now saying single sex must be based on biology doesn't mean everything has to be.

So obviously if you want to have a meeting for people who are same sex attracted the court ruling has no impact at all. (I am not sure anyone has demanded that any other protected characteristic has to prove that meeting up or providing services for those of a protected characteristic has to be proportional). It was always for the Labour version of the EA to give men acess to women's services etc.

Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics.

It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).

This sounds good, but wasn't there previous guidance that associations of a smaller number (xx?) could basically say our association is only for whoever they wanted to limit it to.

Because this guideline of 25 or more (whether new or a clarification of existing guidelines) clearly means that lesbian bars, or holidays or whatever are totally within their rights to hold lesbian only events.

Or even a women's conference of many hundreds, if it is organised by an association?

So anything that is "women only" now has to be women only, but you could use the same exemption to have "trans women only" or "trans people only" or "lesbian only".

Only Gender Reassignment is a protected characteristic, so you could have a service or event only open to anyone with a GRC?

Although as it can include 2 protected characteristics you could have an service for biological males who have a GRC ie TW. Or a service for biological ffemales with a GRC ie TM.

I'll stop responding to points made back at the start of this thread, but many of the questions seem to think everything that happens will be governed by this.

It only applies to those who want, for whavever reason to provide services to groups who are from the listed protect characteristics.

As far as I know, if someone wants to advertise an event or association or whatever using the word gender, the act doesn't apply to them as gender is not a protected characteriestic, nor is self identity.

The guidelines are to ensure that the members of the protected characteristics can have the right to organise or meet. And up until the court ruling the protected characteristic didn't have this right as it was underminded by the GRA. This prioritising of a GRC over sex no longer applies.

But as is pointed out. All of this is only in relation to equalities.

We have, but TRAs conveniently ignored the more recently clarifying statements of the EHRC.

@PoisedRubyLion

The problem is its impossible to write a law to say that a space can be for women and lovely passing TW, and exclude the horrible or unpassing TW.

Being lovely and passing are subjective, so it can only ever be all TW or no TW in womens spaces.

It shouldn't be a shock that women on this board are less upset about what happens to your friend then the protection of women only spaces.

I'm in the same situation. I couldn't even pass as male if I tried. It is incredibly unsafe for me to use male facilities, not to mention a direct breach of my right to privacy under the GRA. The incomplete interim guidance appears to be stating that I can't use male facilities anyway due to the discomfort it'll cause men to have an obvious woman in there with them.

I transitioned as a child, assimilated and built a life; a career. Everything I've ever known - the entire last 25 years of my adult life - all undone.

I've lived alongside you. Laughed, loved and cried alongside you. Shared moments of elation and despair. What the fuck else can I do? It's who I am - who I have always been.

It's all gone now. Written out of existence and consigned to legal limbo.

I'm not a criminal. I'm not going to break the law. That's not who I am. I don't see how I can even exist in public or my own workplace now, however, under practical circumstances.

To all those celebrating: Well done. Your hate won in the end.

Yes, this was a key point that the Supreme Court case turned upon.

Please don't lie, you are at no risk at all in the mens. Women even go into the mens when the queues for the womens are long. They face NO problems. And as your lot say to us women? There are cubicles! Even in the mens. So there you go! Problem solved.

But this is purely about validation. It was never, ever, ever about safety.

You have no right enter to female only spaces, you never did. And by entering female spaces, you are breaching females right to privacy. You are not the victim here. The GRA and GRC needs to be made null and void and all 'certificates' made invalid. We've had enough.

The only hate is from those like yourselves who violated womens boundaries and spaces, for no reason at all other than gratification and validation. Look in the mirror. It's the likes of yourself that has done this, by overreaching and pushing way too far. You did this.

Hate lost. They didn't care about tw just living their lives. They pushed and pushed and they broke it for them. Don't blame women. Look at your allies and, for some that post on these boards, look in the mirror.

Bravo!

Listening to Anti-Social there's a bloke, Cleo, who gets awfully close to making it crystal clear that it's not the 'spaces' that are the issue but the unconsenting women in them. He's all fed up he's going to get a private room on the NHS and Bev Jackson keeps saying that a private room is nicer! Surely everyone wants a private room? Right? Well not if you want a supply of unconsenting women. Being in a nice, safe, private room isn't any good for access to unconsenting women is it?

I hope there is a lot of talk about how upset transwomen are that they're going to get nice, safe private rooms on the NHS because it's going to make the Isla Bryson, Dr Upton and piss protest peakings look really tame in comparison.

I don’t think they should be getting private rooms - there are likely to be people who need them more. I don’t see why they shouldn’t either have trans bays or use the spaces for their sex.

Found this, and given STA’s work on the GRPB bill that kicked off this whole journey from James Morton pushing the unlawful definition of women at the committee stage through to the FWS judgement from the UKSC & the interim EHRC guidance, it’s heartening to hear Vic Valentine from STA state “…hopefully we can all agree that public authorities do have a duty to ensure that their policies are in line with the law, and that they do respect the rights of everyone & don’t discriminate…”

https://x.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1899470978238799984?s=46

And lets see what STA are saying now on that…

“The judgment is a clear departure from how the law has been understood to work for decades.”

https://www.scottishtrans.org/supreme-court-first-thoughts/

Not so keen on public authorities duty to comply with the law now that it’s been confirmed what the law is.

Colour me shocked. Shooketh I am.

You make a good point - see this post from an NHS nurse who works with patients who sustain serious brain injuries:

https://x.com/dearrebelada/status/1915740154184044718?s=46

The tweet contains screenshots of a letter she’s sent to Wes Streeting detailing how allocating side rooms - intended for infection control, especially for patients more vulnerable to infections - being allocated to those who do not want to be treated on the wards relevant to their sex, increases risk to others who need the side rooms, and places them at greater risk as a result.

Side rooms are used/allocated based on clinical need. Placing patients in there to avoid them being placed on a ward appropriate to their sex at birth, creates risks for others.

Some primary schools probably don't have changing rooms.
Hence kids end up having PE kit on under uniform or as my kids primary does, come to school in PE kit.

I'm pleased the interim guidance has been released so quickly- it's important for everyone to know what we're working with. I have to admit, though, that while I'm really happy with 90% of it (the necessity of single sex toilets, hospitals, prison wards, refuges, accommodation, etc), I'm disappointed about the rules for associations. I absolutely agree that, as women, we deserve the right to have single-sex associations! At the same time, I'm going to be mourning the losses of spaces for women and trans women which I've enjoyed over the years. It looks like the new guidance means such events will either have to ban trans women from attending or open the spaces to everyone, which could be a real loss for some of our communities. I really hoped that such spaces would still be an option, for those who want to run them and those of us who would want to attend.

I showed this to dh, who is also very interested in what has been happening. We owe such a debt of gratitude to everyone, who fought so vociferously for women and girls. We have a teen dd.

Why are toilets segregated if it's apparently so safe for women to use male toilets?

Good to have the guidance even in an interm basis.

A heck of a lot of schools will be looking at their toilets. Some will need to change them others will get away with instead of two sets of unisex toilets change one to boys and one to girls.

The rules for associations are clear. If it says Female it should be only females.
I've been thinking about a female looking for a same sex group then turning up to find transwomen and how upsetting that could be, especially if she's gone looking for single sex for previous trauma or religion or just needs someone to talk to about menopause, it can be a comfort when someone is going through the same as you.

What's not clear is public facilities like gyms or shopping centre toilets.

Women aren’t being asked to use the men’s toilets. Only men are

At the same time, I'm going to be mourning the losses of spaces for women and trans women which I've enjoyed over the years.

You just dont use the word woman or the word sex.

I am sure someone can come up with something like feminine gender identity.

The court case was abut the definition of the word sex in the Equality Act.

What sort of association would be women's and transwomen? Because i honestly can't think of anything?

If it's a stereotypical 'female thing' like a knitting bee, what would be wrong with a man, say Tom Daley joining in?