EHRC is taking regulatory action against organisations in the policing, education and health sectors whose policies misrepresent equality law on single sex spaces

[IDareSay]

EHRC is taking regulatory action against organisations in the policing, education and health sectors whose policies misrepresent equality law on single sex spaces (From a post on X from Akua Reindorf KC)

www.equalityhumanrights.com/ehrc-completes-review-evidence-government-single-sex-space-policies

I think because some have withdrawn their illegal policies and wording since complaints were made.

I wonder if the Hampstead Ladies Pond is on there?

This is what was originally asked for in the consultation. I’d imagine the numbers are low because they specifically asked for organisations and public bodies that advise others. Maybe it could be a Council that advises schools or a regulatory body that advises members. It could therefore mean that a lot more organisations have been doing this as a result of the advice given. It would imply that these organisations will have to update this information and then feed it down to others. That’s my understanding.

Some of the orgs on my wishlist for the 19:

The Equality Network and Rebecca Don Kennedy
A major University with sexist rules
A NHS trust
The Welsh government

They are all going to get hit sooner or later.

Thanks to everyone on Mumsnet and everywhere else who made this happen. Everyone from the background poster online, those who donated, everyone who wrote a complaint, to those on the streets and those leading the charge.

You are all amazing! Take a bow folks.

You saved countless women and kids and even unhappy men from themselves. Most people stood by and did nothing. While you had the courage to see through the lies.

I was wondering about this e.g an NHS trust and an individual hospital, a MAT and an individual school etc.

If they target individual and collective providers they set a precedence for each which send a clear message to all 400+

Around the time of the update release following the SC judgment they were looking to fill a position for a lawyer in house specialising in “enforcement”.

The University of Leicester still has this in their trans policy available on their website https://le.ac.uk/about/making-a-difference/edi/dignity-respect

• Trans people have access to single-sex toilets and changing facilities appropriate to their self-identified gender and this may mean that a person changes the facilities they use at the point when they start to live in their gender.
• It is not acceptable to restrict a trans person to using accessible toilets or other unisex facilities, although providing that option is helpful for non-binary and trans people and some trans people prefer to use unisex facilities.

Freedom in the arts are challenging museum guidelines written by academics at Leicester uni; get the popcorn in for that one. 🍿

I look forward to yet more Oscar-wining performances of doe-eyed hulking great men with wobbly bottom lips stammering about how they didn't know the mean nasty SC judgment was actually law and that they simply have not had the strength to even look at how it might affect them, what with it being such a gigantic and wholly unexpected piece of news. Probably some fainting at the shock of it all as well.

@Witchymadwoman but this is our government (or at least, our administrative state) doing something. The EHRC is the public body whose responsibility is to enforce the Equality Act and now that the courts have clarified what the law means, they are making sure that everyone is in compliance with the law.

I know what you mean about the government previously not doing anything while these illegal policies were cascaded through institutions, but remember that the EHRC itself was captured for a long time as well: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5331051-were-the-ehrc-captured

I completely agree that it’s great progress, but the review was commissioned by the previous government. The present incumbents have said nothing.

I don't think they can withdraw illegal guidance and leave a void. Surely that's nearly as bad?

EHRC is clearing out the Stonewall crap.

You love to see it.

It says in the Times report (gift share above, thank you to the poster who shared it) what the criteria were used to whittle the 404 down to 19. Includes severity, persistence (unlawful policies still in place 3m after SC judgment) degree of impact on vulnerable groups etc. I would also hope they've also chosen representatives from different orgs, eg a university, a hospital trust etc perhaps as a warning to others in that sector.

From this bit in the EHRC statement:
The EHRC is now writing to 19 organisations asking them to review policies that contain language wrongly suggesting there is an automatic legal right to access single-sex spaces based on self-identification.

I suspect they are focusing on organisations that are misrepresenting the law by suggesting there is no legal alternative to allowing trans people access to opposite sex spaces, rather than on those that simply say trans people can use opposite sex spaces.

Which isn’t enough, yet, but it’s a start. And it’s important to get the idea that it’s a legal requirement off the websites and other output of public organisations that others might look to as a source of authority.

I can see why they might prioritise getting their guidance out before they start writing to orgs to get more general compliance.

How hard is it to write something that is congruent with the law and takes account of the fact there may as yet be insufficient provision of third spaces? Let’s see what I can do in my teabreak.

Everybody is legally required to use toilets and other facilities such as changing rooms congruent with their protected characteristics of sex, and should respect the rights of those with disabilities.

. Anyone may use unisex facilities. These should be fully private and self-contained.
. Single sex facilities must only be used by people of the relevant sex i.e. biological sex observed at birth.
. Accessible facilities are provided for those with disabilities, whether these are visible or not. If no unisex facilities are available, then as a courtesy individuals who feel unable to use single sex facilities congruent with their sex may be permitted to use them.

Although I think 3rd spaces (actually 4th) is an imposition on the organisations, taxpayers, etc. that have to find space for them, build them, and maintain them it gives tras like Don Kennedy you come here on the day of my daughter's marriage the opportunity to get naked with the men she finds so harmless and vulnerable and they'd comply with the law.

Eta I say they're an imposition because there's no real need for them unlike disabled toilets.

@Witchymadwoman true - they've accepted the Cass Review in full even if they didn't commission it, and haven't made any indication that they'll be introducing legislation to amend the Equality Act following the FWS ruling to replace "sex" with "gender identity" (in contrast to what Australia did, for example, when they re-wrote their equality legislation).

Never forget that until the Tories woke up and smelled the coffee, they were the ones consulting on whether to introduce self-ID in 2018, while Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems went even further and put self-ID in their manifestos in 2019 (this article is fascinating: https://capx.co/anatomy-of-a-bandwagon-how-self-id-captured-britains-political-class)

So while Labour are not being vocal at the moment they are at least getting out of the way. Given what a third rail this whole thing is politically for all parties, and the completely mad stuff Labour politicians have said in the past, I think tactical silence (amounting to a reverse ferret) is about the best we can hope for from a Kier "99% of women don't have a penis" Starmer-led government.

Shame the EHRC can't do more about shit provision for disabled people in the UK. I guess writing stern letters can only do so much.

According to the times they went for the biggest and worst offenders 1st but they cut those who have changed their policy already so we're left with the 19 worst of the worst who still refuse to follow the law

Appreciate your honesty and praise! Read your post out loud to my DH who travels frequently to the US and couldn’t agree more..

There's also a ripple effect, as we learned from the Sandy Peggie tribunal. When the DEI lead at NHS Fife was questioned she said that they had no policies in place and a centralised Scottish NHS policy hadn't been released yet, so she basically just copied the policies from another trust that seemed like they knew what they were doing, figuring that they probably had had them checked and they were probably ok...

So if the EHRC goes after a few of the most high-profile "patient zero" organisations and makes them amend their policies, then everyone else who copied those policies will also amend theirs. Hopefully.

There's also a ripple effect, as we learned from the Sandy Peggie tribunal.

The SOP of any organisation caught with its pants down is "Well no one has complained before" as they try to gaslight you into backing down.

Which is why it is vital to capture all and every complaint in as much detail as possible.

This is why it's useful to record calls, when they don't provide email ...

It depends where. They’re valuable for parents with opposite sex kids. DH used to take DD out a lot at the weekends and really didn’t like having to take her into the gents with urinals. (Obviously he never dreamed of using the ladies instead!). Places like zoos and museums

Have they made public what it is the 19 organisation have done that is wrong?

Just thinking if they did this it might make some other group sit up and think we need to take this seriously

Also thought some might appreciate knowing about this latest misrepresentation of facts

Trans group delivers thousands of EHRC consultation pages directly to the equality minister’s door
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trans-group-delivers-thousands-of-ehrc-consultation-pages-directly-to-the-equality-minister-s-door/ar-AA1LleD5

Fair point.