Good Law Project's latest claim - fact check?

[teawamutu]

I'm sure there must be some arrant bollocks in here somewhere, because Jolyon.

But is there anything worrying in this?

goodlawproject.org/ehrc-backs-down-on-single-sex-toilets/

Blimey. Parliament aren't going to rule on the guidance. Parliament passed the law, the SC clarified it and the EHRC explain what it means, in practical terms!

Unisex will be preferable to 'women plus men who want to be in with the women'. So hey ho.

It's also relevant to point out where the burden of proof lies. The GLP is claiming that the interim update was defective and that the preliminary point the GLP made in their letter forced the EHRC to make a clarification and remedy that defect. It's the GLP who needs to prove their claim, not the EHRC (or us) that the interim update was clear. The futility of that effort is apparent with interactions with @tandora -- it's a difficult task to argue clarity if the other party won't debate in good faith and simply refuses to concede they understood something.

The EHRC explicitly denies that the interim update was defective in the way the GLP is suggesting (e.g. "this is recognised in the last bullet point"), and in their reply they simply reiterated what they had already stated. If the original EHRC language was unclear then the response is unclear too since it simply quotes the interim update.

We agree that such a convenience may be suitable where it is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside. Similarly washing facilities and changing rooms will be suitable where they are in rooms that can be secured from the inside. This is recognised in the last bullet point: “where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men” i.e. to that extent single-sex toilets do not need to be provided.

The GLP has not demonstrated, nor did they try to demonstrate, that the first sentence does not follow from the last quoted bullet point. What they did instead was to paraphrase the EHRC's response

"and that where a toilet “is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside” the employer will satisfy its obligations."

and then argue that the paraphrase (which they invented!) was clearer than the original interim update.

True though.

Something that strikes me very much about trans people and their allies is that they seem to have very limited understanding of sex and, particularly, sexuality. How can a male person think himself to be a woman if he has any concept of either male or female sexuality? How can any woman think herself to be a man? How can any person think someone else is of the opposite sex to their natal sex if they have any idea about how the attraction between the sexes that reproduction demands functions? And how can anyone think that homosexual orientation can include attraction towards the opposite sex and still be homosexual?
I can only think that such people think sexual activity is some form of performative validation of self rather than a biological imperative - though it’s possible that that is actually all it is for many people anyway.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "statutory guidance".

It's statutory only because the Equality Act 2006 provides for it to be written - it's provided under statute. It's not statutory in the sense that it is or becomes a statute - a law.

You aren't in trouble if you fail to follow the guidance per se. You're in trouble if you fail to follow the law, and the guidance is provided to help you follow the law.

You know perfectly well that if anyone started saying "you people" about trans people or trans activists there would be immediate accusations of stereotyping, of lumping people who "just want to get on with their lives" in with the bad eggs, etc etc. And if you want a sample of the kind of thing a lot of posters on this board have actually had to deal with, Google "terfisaslur".

To be precise, Parliament has to "approve" the draft code of practice by failing to pass a resolution of disapproval within 40 days of it being laid. At that point it comes into force.

But the consequences of the code of practice coming into force are very marginal. The law is already in force, and you can't be punished for failing to follow the code of practice as long as you follow the law.

And the right of women and girls to privacy?

Degrading and humiliating to use the facilities provided for your sex or a separate unisex facility? Seriously?

Perhaps you will answer this question - Why are you so desperate to force women and girls to share toilets, changing rooms, etc., with men and boys?

Why do trans people have a right to hide their trans status? Is it something to be ashamed of?

No one’s right to privacy negates another’s right to single sex provisions. Nor does it negate another person’s right to consent.

“Why are you so desperate to force women and girls to share toilets, changing rooms, etc., with men and boys?”

I look forward to the answer.

all because of a male person’s philosophical belief.

There is widespread acknowledgment and acceptance that single sex services/ provision for females reflects a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

The vast majority of people accept that no males, regardless of their gender identity, should access female only services - they would no longer be female only.

Undoubtably, this makes life more difficult for transwomen, but it is not in any way reasonable to expect females to forgo their single sex services to address this issue. I think it unreasonable to suggest it, let alone expect it. Suggesting that this boundary is motivated by transphobia is absurd.

Transwomen, by definition, are male. If they were not male, they wouldn’t be a transwoman. Many transwomen are vulnerable, many feel unable to participate in aspects of life if they are unable to use female only services, or feel overwhelmed by sadness about this. I think this is sad, and something should be done to address the issues arising, but removing single sex provision for females is not an acceptable solution.

What it boils down to is that there are some male people who are very very upset at the idea of not being able to access female single-sex spaces. Jolyon has raised half a million quid on the promise that he will somehow persuade the legal system to fix it so they won't be upset.

Of course, if male people who would like to be female aren't comfortable using male facilities, they can always find unisex facilities. But we've been told repeatedly that this won't do, and it's very very important that there are facilities advertised as for female people only, which these male people get to access.

I hate to be cynical, but you start to suspect that access to unconsenting women and girls is the whole point.

And, because we can tell someone's sex by sight with almost total accuracy, but we can't tell someone's philosophical belief by sight, we can't restrict female spaces to females plus [males with a sincere philosophical belief that they were meant to be female]. If you allow some males in, then any male, with any agenda, can come in.

Or we can simply keep all males out, because female safety, privacy and dignity outweigh a small number of male people being sad.

I agree. If the brightest and best in the Scottish Government could not present compelling evidence to explain what those terms mean, then I suspect that there is no compelling definition that withstands a modicum of scrutiny.

That just be disheartening.

I'm not sure that is a convincing argument, Helle, have you seen the bunch? Intellectual giants, they are not.

I have no idea what you mean by this.
I was agreeing with the quoted post - there is no such thing, as you claim, as "lying about being trans".
If the only criterion of being trans is to simply say you are, then everyone who says they are, are completely and utterly trans, because they have done the thing that makes you trans.

Unless you want to introduce further criteria, but you would have to make it clear what that is.

What a fucking word salad.

Rememberer, Tandora doesnt mean 'single-sex' when they say 'woman'. They mean "people of either sex". So as far as I can interpret, they are saying that there won't be single-gender, mixed-sex provision any more, which is what we've been saying is the point of the whole thing.

It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion when people use words in different ways and eyeroll when they're asked to clarify, but apparently that's how some posters like to spend their time.

I'm know I'm late to this one but this is contradictory isn't it because apparently we won't have any services left because "rights"?

Thank you - this is why it's so useful to unpick what people think they are saying, because you can pinpoint where the confusion is coming from and why people are talking at cross-purposes. It's not to gotcha anyone, it's to work out where they are coming from and if there's been a genuine misunderstanding (like pp not realising single-sex toilets are gender-neutral).

Can't tell if they mean 'women' (either sex with a woman gender identity) or 'female people' (female sex with any gender identity), so it's essentially meaningless as well as contradictory.

Well this is not true at work.

We can use the disciplinary process.

Akshually.

Mate, you are in the ladies..
Verbal warning.

You did it again!
Written warning.

Check the disciplinary policy.

Men are not a minority.

The insistence that no-one will enforce access to toilets at work is interesting isn't it.

HR has been utterly maligned over this despite the fact that EDI mostly (and I'm generalising here) are a remote offshoot to core HR who we've watched spaff millions on gender shite with staggering frustration.

I've spent a bloody fortune on personal contributions to tribunals to overcome the weird paralysis this gender shite created as have many others in HR. It was the only way around it.

So believe me, we are absolutely fine with "policing" this.

Take note all the monitors.

In the Fife case HR advice was to not let Dr Beth Upton use the women's changing rooms.

It was the under experienced and indoctrinated EDI employee that agreed he should.

The idea that HR , who have been maligned by association with dishonest EDI dogma won't enforce this is a delusion.

We have been waiting for this ruling in our thousands, for millions of women.