House of Commons Library briefing on the implications of the Supreme Court ruling

[IwantToRetire]

I am not going to quote any of it here, but as it will in many instances be used as a point of reference and interpretation because of the status of the HoC Library, thought I would make others aware that this has been published.

Part of their role is to provide briefings for MPs.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10259/

Have asked MNHQ to insert the word Library after House of Commons in the title. Not only because it should be there, but because without it the title implies something else.

So to be clear the briefing is written by the House of Commons Library
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/

Extract from report below. Highlighted bit suggests thar interim report says there are circumstances where trans people could use single sex facilities according to their acquired gender, whereas the report is quite clear that trans people must not use single-sec facilities according to their acquired gender (and that there may be circumstances where they are not permitted to use those of their sex either). Oddly misleading.

"The interim update said that people should not use facilities provided for the other biological sex “as this will mean they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex”. Further, it said there may be circumstances where trans people are not permitted to use single-sex facilities according to their acquired gender or their biological sex, and that in these cases they should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use. It recommended that where possible, mixed-sex facilities should be provided in addition to single-sex facilities."

Other than one line quoting Phillipson, that entire briefing is centred around the perceived disadvantages for men. There is no mention of the groups that the judgment protects: the briefing would suggest that this is a bad law that has been found to hugely disadvantage men with trans identities, and serves no other purpose. There is no information regarding the need for these legal protections for women, for lesbian and gay people, and for women with trans identities, so that in fact with this taken into consideration, the briefing is focused exclusively on the interests of straight men with trans identities.

That this propaganda and spin is being fed to ministers is extremely concerning. It is all over the media and is being the main message fed to the general public.

I don't think it's saying that.

I think it's saying that there might be situations where e.g. transmen cannot use the men's facilities (because they are not biologically male) and a service provider might decide that it is not appropriate for them to use the women's facilities (because even though they are biologically female, they have a grown a beard etc). There are provisions in Sch 3 that allow this, but the service provider would have to ensure that there is somewhere they can use (e.g. gender-neutral/accessible/disabled/family facilities).

main message fed to the general public.

As per this name. But the SC judgment was always going to provoke this just for mildly restating the law.

The SC at best marks the end of the beginning. None of the large, captured organisations are going to obey the law.

We are in a profoundly anti-democratic and febrile time when an extraordinary number of the lanyard class perceive themselves as contemporary Martin Luther King figures. Somehow, something is always more important than the recognition of women as morally autonomous people with full human rights.

To paraphrase something on FWR, it’s taken less than 20 years to go from women being seen as independent legal entities to just being a feeling.

I don’t understand why, at the end, the briefing links to a press article from the Guardian speculating about what the EHRC might do instead of linking to the EHRC update itself. Weird.

Does SexMatters need to chase this up?

It's hard not to interpret that as able trans folk trump less able non trans folk.

They can't even spell Baroness Falkner's name correctly. The Parliamentary library has ling been captured.

I have long lived by the mantra that were you find one mistake, there will be others. It's not a great way to make friends though.

Yes. Precisely. And is attempting to influence and mislead ministers.

I haaven't had time to re-read since skim reading last night, but from comments so far they seem to confirm that this isn't really a neutral balanced briefing for MPs.

Definitely think that any one who thinks that anything needs to be clarified, or put right eg link to EHRC, should contact them.

Contact info here https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/public-feedback-and-complaints-policy/

re quote by PP about provision of toilets for trans people, it is a direct quote from the EHRC interim guidelines:

• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided

Obviously it would lead to endless court cases if they way a providered labelled toilets it appeared there were none for trans people.

Although as I often say I still dont know that those who self identify have any legal rights and only those with a GRC - on the route to - are covered.

Which to me just brings up again that in the decade or so of "gender benders" there was no issue about men who presented themselves is a "feminine" way couldn't just use the men's and similarly women who presented themselves in a "masculine" way couldn't just use the women's.

So much of this is about insisting that other people validate what in the end is just an individual way of life.

Obviously it would lead to endless court cases if they way a providered labelled toilets it appeared there were none for trans people.

And yet it's totally OK for there to be no toilets for less able people. No matter how they identify.

Why do I have to echo what I heard 40 years ago ?

My saying this was more a reflection of the litigious nature of TRAs.

But do think it is noticeable that in the Interim Guidance from the EHRC re toilets that they don't at any point say the providers should NOT just designate an existing disabled toilet to be used by trans people.

In the sense that you think they will end up in the disabled facilities?

I think you can make an argument that if "being trans" is really about having a significant mental health condition that necessitates medical interventions that mean someone can't reasonably use the conventional toilet facilities, they are in fact disabled.

What that might mean as far as numbers of people added that need such facilities I don't know. I would think that it should be a very low number of people that fall into that category, but that's not what is happening now. That may change however - losing access to women's facilities may mean it's not as attractive to some, and I think FtM transition will likely fall as the medical implications become clear.

I see that the HoC Library has corrected their inaccurate statement about the EHRC consultation.

FWR rules OK! Well maybe!

Just going to quote this one section from the briefing:

The court said that the EA 2010 seeks to reduce inequality and to protect people with protected characteristics against discrimination. The act recognises women as having the protected characteristic of sex and “transsexual” people (the term used in the act) as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The court found that as a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination could only be interpreted as referring to biological sex. For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity are based on the fact that only biological women can become pregnant.

It also found that a certificated sex interpretation would cause confusion and impracticability in relation to other parts of the EA 2010, such as the provision of single and separate sex services, and could undermine the protection given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Overall it concluded that any interpretation other than one based on biological sex would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate.

That appears to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation of what has happened. It doesn't say much about the implications for protecting womens single sex spaces and sport etc because no one they can quote has been talking about that. They could perhaps have found another bit if gillian Phillips statement to report, but I'm sure they are right that the parliamentary committees are all terribly worried about the effect on tw, and no one is raising the question of how the hell the pc of sex has been so badly mashed that womens rights have not been upheld properly, and now hopefully will be. The HoC Library briefing looks like it does because everything they can read looks like that. It's a problem. It would take someone to write their own original thoughts to come up with something different, whereas I expect what they really do in these briefings compile information.

Ah, what did it say before?

I don’t understand why, at the end, the briefing links to a press article from the Guardian speculating about what the EHRC might do instead of linking to the EHRC update itself. Weird.