Interim guidance from EHRC is out, thread 2

[Darkgreendarkbark]

Unless someone has beat me to it? Seemed like an animated discussion still going, if anyone wants to continue. I wanted to reply to Cautious Lurker who said it was for society to uphold the law and stop people going into the wrong facilities. My post (before the thread filled up) was going to be:

Well, may I nitpick - it's down to service providers and employers. They are the ones subject to this law. It's not "for us as a society" to ensure that individuals follow the rules that service providers and employers bring in so that those organisations may comply with the law. I'm all in favour of the law, but it's not on my shoulders to uphold and enforce it in every leisure centre and office block. We did all the hard work of campaigning and crowdfunding just to get the law itself clarified. I can now just use my voice to complain to the provider if my single-sex space turns out not to be. Because the law is on our side.

Not getting it from anywhere, I’m inferring? And wondering how it might apply in practice for small businesses when people start kicking off.

Am hoping the full guidance, when it clarifies which of the laws it states allow for the exclusion of tw from mens spaces/TM from women’s, will make it clear what it means as that goes beyond what the SC judgment stated?

I am concerned those few lines in the guidance leave a big hole that people like the good law project may try to drive a truck through and make it all messy because on the one hand the SC was clear - access to facilities must be acc to sex, but the ECHR guidance has muddied that with reference to unspecified laws that may in certain circumstances exclude people regardless of sex?

Yes and on Radio 4 yesterday the host ended on this note after a woman from an association (small businesses?) was making out it was impossible for small businesses to manage the 'change'.

It's really not that tricky. Individual bathrooms, or single sex facilities that are actually single sex.

I see this but it was written prior to the SC ruling and may now need to be revised in due course? My question will be whether these building regs will remain as they are after the ECHR interim - or specifically - full guidance? I truly hope so, but the ECHR guidance suggests that although it agrees TG should use the changing room/bathroom etc that accords with their sex, there will be circumstances where it is legitimate to exclude them and in that case alternative provision must be arranged.

I live in a town where there are many, many TGs and lots of old buildings with already limited facilities that will have to find a way to adapt those and still comply with these other laws - which until we know which laws the ECHR are specifically referring to, we can’t really assess what they mean or its implications… but those lines in their guidance now create a grey area? And we know how quick to take people to court they can be, esp with Stonewall and the GLP happy to fund and lobby.

I am just concerned that this fight is not over - that they will fight to erode our single sex spaces and replaces them with unisex ones.

This was leading up to Document T. Look at the final Document T.

I agree it’s now getting confusing.

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but if an employer has a policy that is not EA compliant anymore how long do they have to update it?

Coincidentally, Akua Reindorf KC (one of the Commissioners of the EHCR) tweeted on this just now to somebody who had a similar question.

Question: My understanding is that it says, for example, that lesbian groups must exclude trans women? Rather than can just legally exclude them if they choose?

Reply from AR:

It’s an inevitable consequence of the judgment. In general an association mustn’t discriminate against a person by depriving them of membership because of a protected characteristic: s.101(1). So eg a reading group can’t say “no disabled people” /1

But there’s an exception which says that an association can be limited to people who share a protected characteristic: Sch 16 para 1. Thus an association can be limited to women, disabled people, older people, black people etc /2

An association can combine protected characteristics as long as it’s for people who all have the same two (or more) PCs: lesbian women, black men, young Asian disabled people etc. This way, everybody in the club falls within both/all the PCs /3

But you can’t have an either/or association: disabled people + older people; black women + white men; young people + disabled people. This is because the association can’t satisfy the single protected characteristic condition for any one of its PCs /4

So you can’t have an association for lesbian women and heterosexual men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which is what trans women who are attracted to women are for the purposes of the Act) /5

This wouldn’t be an association for lesbians because it would have straight members; it wouldn’t be an assc for women because some members are men & it wouldn’t be an assc for trans people because some members aren’t trans. Hence it’s discriminatory and unlawful /end

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1916748422658359573

I'm confused with all this too. I'm trans (bio female) and am happy with the ruling because biological sex is important and with everything that has happened with the whole TWAW thing this had to be clarified. I just want to know where I can go to the bathroom or to get changed - especially at work - as I have medically transitioned and am always greeted as if I were male when meeting someone new. This could be that everyone is super trans aware, but it could also be that I look too male to be using single-sex female facilities without causing some discomfort to the women around me or myself as I would feel uncomfortable making others uncomfortable but also being worried about being asked to leave etc. That being said I shouldn't be in the men's room either. I don't see that many places (including work) will be able to accommodate two single sex areas, disabled toilets and then another space for those excluded from both single sex areas and I can't afford to always buy a coffee and use the single sex spaces in cafes etc.

I just hope the guidance comes out soon!

Just listened to Stephen Kinnock, Health and care Minister working for Wes Streeting, interviewed by Emma Barnett on BBc Radio 4 Today programme

He was asked when the NHS will implement the Supreme Court single sex judgement, given that Interim guidance has been issued. His reply was a masterclass in hedging and prevarication, like a page out of the script for Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister. He wittered on in his low energy voice including saying:

• single sex provision would be the “default position” (I.e. there will be exceptions).
• the department “will need to digest the guidance” before issuing guidance to hospitals et al
• ”important not to pre-empt” …”because that will muddy the waters”
• ”keen not to jump to conclusions”…”important to wait”…
• etc.

I took from this that has no intention at all of acting on the EHRC Interim Guidance.

He was asked about the report that came out over the weekend that all dysmorphic children will be screened for autism. Said he heard about it but was not familiar with it. I can’t believe it was not given to him in advance, he’s the number 2 Minister in the department. Anyway he declined to answer any questions.

Of course he has a trans child. Perhaps this gives him a personal conflict, and his position as Minister is not tenable and he should step down.

Certainly if I were Wes Streeting wanting to get on with sorting this mess out, Kinnock is not someone I would want as second lieutenant.

So we are at the outright lying stage now...

I suppose Mridul Wadhwa calling women who wanted single sex refuges 'bigots' and taking the job reserved for a woman isn't strictly completely speaking per se 'challenging' the exclusion of TW in Rape Crisis. If you squint really hard.

• separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

What is the strategy here?

It's clearly wrong, and won't work in court.

Wouldn't SW be better off accepting the decision and campaigning for a change in the law?

Problem is, as a pp on the first thread found out, the H&S executive don't seem to be willing to enforce it. So where do we go from here?

The lockable bit is always questionable as is the reasonable adjustment for workers.

1. Doors can’t truly be lockable as building regs in Doc T say they should be able to be opened outwards in an emergency when someone has collapsed in them and a body is stopping entry. How easy that is (hinge reversal/lifting off/coin) may be abused?
2. A reasonable adjustment for someone with a collapse disorder maybe a door gap so that they can be seen if they collapse.

It seems the wrong if we have 1 but not 2.
We know people collapse in toilets enough times we put a rule in for building regs, but we don’t seem to be concerned about seeing they have collapsed and getting them out in time.

It’s also potentially indirect discrimination against women, as many will self-exclude (or be uncomfortable, etc) if it’s the type of service that needs to be single-sex but admits transwomen.

There is a lot of misinformation on all sides.

I thought it was a pretty bad show on Radio 4 Today this morning for a government minister to say they would need to "think carefully" and "not rush" and "wait for EHRC guidance". They didn't bother with any careful thinking when they removed all of the women's rights did they? It is egregious!

It will take a few years for some cases to come through the Tribunals and courts with both sides claiming hostile environments and discrimination. And then the cases will be settled in favour of the women/single sex spaces. Financial penalties will be levied and it will become less attractive a hobby. We can hope

Stephen Kinnock is completely captured as he has an adult daughter who thinks she is a man & has had a double mastectomy.

Then he’s completely compromised, and should have the decency to understand this and step aside.

My thoughts too.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11876703/amp/Mum-Neil-Kinnocks-granddaughter-reveals-fears-trans-son-gets-double-mastectomy.html

I have been thinking that about a lot of commentators. There seem to be plenty men happy to take spots on news shows and giving their views. Don't they realise how ridiculous they are?

Maybe I should start touting myself as a pundit with lived experience of identifying with prostate cancer? Or male pattern baldness? I would be regarded as a complete idiot - but apparently a man can espouse in that way on female matters. FFS what is wrong with these people?

Another issue with Stephen Kinnock is that despite being an MP for a constituency in Wales, he doesn’t live here, he doesn’t even live in the UK. He’s married to the ex-president of Denmark and that’s where his family home is.

It must be v difficult for him to keep on top of the UK’s public mood and sentiment.

If he lived here and was committed to staying, I’d also feel more reassured about his interest in finding long term solutions to the UK’s social political challenges. As it is, he can just hop off back to Denmark.

Just seen this posted elsewhere, its advice for trans identified individuals on using single sex faculties, basically just encouraging them to ignore the law and cause trouble for women and businesses. Prepared by an Inclusive Culture Expert 😂

Toilets - A pocket guide for Service Providers and for Trans People

I was talking to DH about this situation earlier and trying to explain it to him. He 'gets' the GC viewpoint but he hasn’t got the visceral understanding that (many) women possess.

We go to a coffee-shop sometimes that has 3 toilets side-by-side. They used to be: female, male, disabled. It all worked fine. Afaik nobody had any problem with it.
Then at some point a couple of years ago they silently became all ‘unisex'. Ever since, the loo that used to be the women's - always pretty neat, tidy and dry - became messy, piss-covered and nasty. All 3 cubicles are like that now.

DH was saying re this coffee-shop and the judgment, 'oh well, they’re unisex so it’ll be fine and it won’t make a difference.' He needed me to point out that actually, no - the separate women's loo used to be a much nicer environment and I’d like to have it reinstated, please.

Interesting and I think this is another example backing up Barracker's 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' theorem.

It helps to mentally translate "transwomen" into "men who claim to be women" for clarity of thought and understanding!

I choose that translation carefully as it encompasses all those who genuinely believe that they are in fact 'women' - whatever that means under their own personal belief system (to which they are entitled, however vehemently I disagree) - as well as those with less ingenuous motivations. And under any sort of self-ID system and/or the definition of the protected characteristic "gender reassignment" under the EA2010, we are absolutely talking about both when we talk about "transwomen".