Supreme Court Ruling – What It Means for Women's Organisations - WRC briefing

[IwantToRetire]

Provided by an outside trainer who says:

The Supreme Court ruling that defined 'sex' as biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act will have implications for the women's sector, especially those that are currently trans-inclusive. Audrey Ludwig, Equality law specialist, presents on the judgment, how to interpret it, and answers questions.

NB I have not watched this so have no idea what is said. But thought it would be interesting as the WRC is meant to be the representative of women's groups!

(I wanted to read the transcript but when I clicked on the link on the youtube page nothing happened)

I can tell you before watching it that Audrey Ludwig should be fine.

But interesting to see if she knows how to advertise services for women and trans women given the ruling.

Yes, she’s pretty sound and sensible.

Fine but how does she help groups who want to go on being trans inclusive but say they are a women's service provider?

Why not watch the video and find out? I follow her on Twitter but haven’t been there much since the judgment. She is OG GC though.

No idea, as @Ereshkigalangcleg says you’d need to watch the video to find out!

We disagree on toilets unfortunately.

She says they can't unless they provide separate services. So they can provide a single sex service and a separate trans service but can't operate a combined female plus transwomen service

I have to admit after reading this about women’s charities it left me with questions:

https://www.wrc.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=dd2a6a52-5399-496d-bc27-99fa508a718e

Can we still call ourselves a women’s charity if we admit transwomen? Audrey says yes!

She's says that there doesn't seem to be legal bar on calling a charity providing mixed sex service a womans charity but she also said that the charity commission and funders may object

Audrey Ludwig is excellent! Really sensible and knows her stuff.

i messaged her on LinkedIn the other day with a question, and she very kindly answered it.

A women's charity can admit trans identifying males
on condition it admits all males

see also the WI thread where the WI are trying to block a bloke - that will fail

A rape refuge can be women and "transwomen" but then cannot exclude any man.

The clarity will come from some stroppy men I suspect ;-)

Audrey is rock solid

What would be the purpose of seeking to exclude males without trans identities whilst including everyone else?

That was a really clear presentation that should put the rocket up any women's charities which are dragging their heels.

She strongly advises not waiting for the new statutory code and says charities have an obligation to follow the law now.

She describes EHRC's interim update as 'not law, but persuasive'

She signposts to Ben Cooper's paper as a good exploration of why the various loopholes which have been suggested will not work.

She explains why correct use of a SSE can never be direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.

She says single sex 'trans inclusive' services are unlawful but that an organisation can provide a mix of single sex, mixed sex and more specialised services as long as they are kept separate.

She says a single sex 'trans inclusive' service would risk a claim of direct discrimination against men and failure to provide a single sex service could risk a claim of indirect discrimination against women.

She advises charities to revisit their charitable aims, be very clear about who their beneficiaries are, review their policies to ensure they are compliant with FWS and to record their decision making processes.

She advises against charities relying on untested areas of law like positive action, or seeking advice from activist orgs like the good law project. She strongly emphasises trustees' obligation to follow the law and not invalidate their insurance. She warns against becoming a test case and tying up all the charity's resources in legal battles for several years.

The FAQ that @Justme56 linked to, which wasn't written by Audrey Ludwig, is a terrible fudge and seems to suggest that it's still lawful to run 'trans inclusive' 'women's' services as long as you don't call them single sex. It says 'Inclusion is legal provided your policies are clear and consistently applied' which is not what AL said at all. It also plugs the good law project as looking for cases to take to ECtHR using positive action.

Quite obviously whoever wrote it doesn't like the ruling and is still looking for loopholes.

Thanks @PencilsInSpace.

I haven't listened to the presentation but I was a bit confused by the FAQs because it didn't read like the kind of thing Audrey normally says. It doesn't have that clarity. It doesn't say in so many words the things that a women's servjce would be trying to find out. So I am glad to hear that it isn't such a faithful summary.

Worth listening to! At the start she said that both sides (women-only vs. trans inclusive) will be looking for legal test cases and both sides have plenty of crowdfunding to bring legal cases. And that your women's organisation will not want to be a test case.

The practical implications are mostly clarified in the long Q&A at the end. From the Q&A "You can't say 'we're a women and trans-identified men inclusive service so we're going to exclude other males', it would have to be completely mixed sex"

So it sounds as if WI have got something wrong.

I was a bit surprised in the very last question that she didn't seem to grasp the idea of a domestic violence service offering different kinds of support to women and to children (both sexes), and presumably not offering any support to adult men. She seemed unable to see why this couldn't simply be a mixed-sex service.