Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

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

I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that. She has never experienced any issues in public and none of my friends have asked me when I introduce her.

No, there's a difference between a room full of individual cubicles, typically without full walls, and with shared sinks, and separate fully enclosed and walled rooms with sinks in each one.

Because they're polite. They will know.

Well, he's going to have to stop using the women's toilets forthwith.

I think that’s the terminology that should be used when workplaces, schools, hospitals etc are writing their policies. It would make it so much clearer to people exactly who they’re referring to

Wow. Sneaky bastards!

This is great. HR people and head teachers are going to have their inboxes full of this document on Monday with parents and employees demanding the men get of their facilities/their daughters’ facilities.

There is no way for the HR people or head teachers to wiggle or twist this and in fact, I think many will be quite relieved.

I think they have always known too.

If you look at this guidance from the EHRC three years ago, it talks about how you can exclude trans people from single sex spaces and services for the opposite sex, whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

To me, that alone confirms that we have always known that sex means biological sex and trumps legal sex where necessary.

The Supreme Court judgment now appears to go further than that, saying that you must exclude trans people from single sex spaces for the opposite sex.

Defending this litigation has been a disaster for the TQ+ lobby. I bet they are furious with the Scottish government as well.

Ohhhhh maaate. You'll learn.

I only became aware of what has been going on a couple of years ago because I live in the middle of nowhere, work for myself and relied on The Guardian for my news. I can't imagine how frustrating it has been to be trying to restore sanity in a captured organisation. Four years of having to put up with this nonsense. Enjoy your vindication!

Hoist with their own petard.
It’s delicious 😁

And if you can create an association for LG plus B, why not for women plus trans women?

There needs to be something which is shared by the group you are including but not the group you are excluding. So for LGB the “something” would be a minority sexual orientation. You can lawfully exclude straight people because they don’t share this “something”.

The court judgement didn’t say you aren’t allowed to have women+transwomen. But it said that it couldn’t think of anything which those had in common which would not be also shared by men or transmen. So the court couldn’t come up with a legitimate justification for having a women-transwomen group. Doesn’t mean such justification doesn’t exist, of course.

They've left out "self-contained" .

Another way to think about it is being able to exclude people with a PC. So an LGB association is excluding all the heterosexual people and only the heterosexual people.

Excluding some of the women and some of the men, when the women you exclude have a PC that the men you exclude lack, isn't comparable to excluding all the straight people and only the straight people.

Yeah I probably explained badly - obvs several different sexualities, but one PC of sexuality. So an LGB group can be considered to share one PC - that of non-heterosexualality.

Yes, I think this terminology will have to be used, as there are still loads of people who get it the wrong way around and think a trans woman is biologically female and vice versa - possibly part of the reason some people haven’t realised the issue.

I’ve certainly had conversations where people can’t understand why a women wouldn’t want to share an intimate space with another biological female wearing men’s clothing, until we’ve realised we were talking at cross purposes and they find out that a transwoman is a biological male (and usually intact), and then they completely understand women’s objection to that.

Would your bedroom count as a "separate room" if the walls were made of melamine-faced chipboard panels with gaps at the top and bottom? Or would you call those panels "partitioning" and not "walls"?

There are regs about partitions etc,

Surely separate room would be like those you see in Starbucks; a literal room complete with washing facilities that only one person uses at a time.
A cubicle that opens onto shared sinks is totally unisex.

Internal walls have standards.

Mostly for fire regs and insulation etc

www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/internal-walls/what-building-regulations-apply-to-internal-walls

Harriet Harmon has had her eyes on that post and she’s remarkably good at getting Labour leaders to appoint her to sinecures.

A refreshing read in my opinion, steps in the right direction. Although a quick browse of Reddit tonight makes clear the difference of opinion from the trans community!

Wow. I am shocked. I thought they will still find a way to wiggle out of it. Hard to believe this might actually be over.

There's a bit to unpack there. So they accept that real does not include trans? Well that's a win.

And where is their evidence on the brains?

Do you really think every person my friend has met was just being nice? I just don’t believe that. She is a normal person, extremely kind, and dresses appropriately for her age.