The Times has seen a copy of EHRC's final guidance

[Igneococcus]

and it looks like it's pretty rubbish:
"Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82eecc43-711f-4c0a-b669-42d09d60d63e?shareToken=e5c7b92df4468caa07dbd71d66c660ab

Most people care enough to challenge, but it will be easier to challenge and remove trans people causing a problem, so I don’t really understand you’re issue

I really do hope you are right and I think the situation in workplaces will be different to shops or cinemas or similar where there are random customers rather than colleagues that HR can have a word with.

Actually yes, I would have liked to see some responsibilities put on individuals even as a reminder that laws are for everyone.

Pretty much this, which is why I wasn't celebrating particularly hard when the SC judgement came through.

Although I am pleased that the duty of organisations etc to provide single sex spaces has been made plain, it was always going to be an absolute bloody minefield both practically and legally to enforce based on the infinitely varied behaviour of the individual service users, restrictions in available space, and staff resource.

It remains legal for a man to be in a women's SSS (and vice versa of course) because any law which tried to make it illegal would be completely unworkable.

This isn't poor reporting. “Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” has always been and remains central to the Act. The thing about 'case by case' is that people were misapplying it to mean that for each individual trans person claiming access an assessment should be made; whereas in fact the 'case by case assessment' relates to an assessment that does have to be made (as a one off, not for each individual), about the nature of a particular setting and how it engages the rights and duties set out int he Act

They are right to say there is no point in asking for birth certificate or passport as proof of sex because they can be falsified. Absolute madness that anyone can have their birth certificate changed imo opinion but they can so that renders that ID pointless. Can't ask for a GRC anyway. So it makes sense to just use your eyes and ears, which is what we have always done.

TRAs think butch lesbians will be mistaken for men. They don't realise how easily we can tell the sex of people whether they have long hair or short hair. We're used to seeing women in what used to be 'mens' clothes. It's easy to differentiate a man from a woman no matter what they are wearing.

And of course, there are those transwomen who have spoken publicly so there's no way they can now pretend to not be trans.

But that is beyond the scope of the guidance. The EhrC has a very specific, legally established remit here: To provide guidance about the requirements of the Equality Act. They can't just shove in extra stuff that isn't anything to do with the Act.

And what has been achieved by the change following the SC judgement is profoundly significant: It means that service providers, employers and public bodies are legally permitted and legally obliged to exclude people on the basis of sex where it is appropriate to do so (ie where it is a prop means to a legit aim).

Naturally there will be individuals who seek to break the terms under which single-sex facilities are provided. That has always been the case. The problem in recent years is that people were being told that these individuals were not in fact breaking these terms, and so their presence became falsely legitimised. Now we are returning to a situation in which they can clearly be told 'no'.

That is the situation we have always had in the past. And it worked. Because there was a clear understanding of the rules. Now we have a return to clarity.

Until the ability to falsify sex on official documents is rightly ended, service users and frontline staff will continue to be put at risk when encountering and challenging men in women's spaces.

Hopefully, one of the orgs will take legal action to end sex falsification.

The GRA and the associated requirements to change sex markers on driving licences and passports must be ended.

The ECHR has consistently held that legal gender recognition is a requirement for member states so unless you also think we should leave the ECHR that isn’t going to happen

Comment from X

'Anyone who tries to stop me using a female only space should consider taking out life insurance, if they haven't already done so.'

And they wonder why women don't want men in their female only facilities. They don't do themselves any favours do they 🙄

I'm cautiously optimistic. It gives an end to the lies that you can't tell, you can't ask and that if you do ask, you're a bigot and can be thrown out of society.

Those who are unable to comply with the law will no doubt cause problems. But that's what's been happening all along with low paid staff responsible for changing rooms etc too scared (with good reason) to challenge these men. Now those breaching women's privacy in the workplace (Fife & Darlington) will be in breach of the law and presumably their workplace expectation that tbey uphold the law.

Returning to where we used to be where men, including the voyeurs & flashers, knew they'd be challenged if they went into women's spaces, is going to take time. But finally the law is clear and hopefully women can focus again all the other worrying social issues once the red flag brigade are back where they belong - with the men.

I'd accept leaving the ECtHR to ensure women and children are safe, yes.

It is very clear that the GRA is in conflict with the Supreme Court judgment in FWS, and that needs to be addressed.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I cannot see clarity in the way it is worded in the article. Anyway IANAL and it is a bit of a side-track to the thread. I'm sure Sex Matters will be all over it when it is finally published and that is why I give them a monthly contribution😍

What do you see as the conflict?

The Times is light on what's contained in the final guidance, but assuming that they mentioned the most important thing that's different the preliminary consultation, i.e. proof of sex, it seems to be in line with Foran's suggestions:

https://knowingius.org/p/ehrc-consultation-response

"It is unclear why a birth certificate would be requested. Under our current law, birth certificates are not a reliable record of biological sex. They cannot be used to verify biological sex. Requesting to see a service user’s birth certificate will be obviously disproportionate because there is no rational connection between the means chosen to verify biological sex and the aim of verifying biological sex. Birth certificates can’t verify biological sex. "

It isn't in conflict.

The SC explained how the EA and GRA interacted. The approach taken by the judges means that the scope of gender recognition is limited to areas where sex is unimportant - this approach is within the area of latitude that governments have where the gender recognition conflicts with other rights.

Still a bloody stupid law, obviously.

If all of a person's official and identifying documents are in the wrong sex it makes it very difficult for anyone seeking to maintain single sex services and spaces to actually challenge anyone who appears to be the wrong sex accessing or attempting to access spaces.

Even if you know that the person in front of you is a man, if all his identity docs says he's female, what do you - as a hypothetical frontline worker, maybe working reception at a community centre when a women's DV group is running, or working the changing rooms in Primark, or doing intake at a women's hostel - do when you refuse him access because he's a man and he says "I'm not a man, I'm a woman, look, I've got a passport, driving licence and birth certificate that all say I'm female"? How do you deal with that? If all the docs say he's female, how do you challenge that?

How the GRA and EA2010 interact has not been properly explained at all and can't be until sex falsification of documents is ended. It just can't. The SC are not on the frontline, they made legal arguments. The EHRC are supposed to make the practical guidance, and I don't see how the SC judgement can be fully and properly implemented until the GRA and it's fripperies are gone.

Interesting that it is 300 pages and Times have chosen to reference changing rooms but nothing re (office) toilet facilities other than they are covered by other legislation, which they are but that has not (to my knowledge) been tested through case law on this yet.

let’s see how it lands!

“Trans people can change their ID and that makes it harder for me to segregate them”

You can always tell so what difference does an ID make?

...and he says "I'm not a man, I'm a woman, look, I've got a passport, driving licence and birth certificate that all say I'm female"? How do you deal with that?

Punch him in the balls Call security.

It's lawful to exclude if you have a reasonable concern that he's a man. Whether you're right or wrong.

Documents are irrelevant because they aren't reliable proof of sex. The service provider doesn't have to accept the documents. If challenged , the onus is on the man trying to gain entry to prove he is a woman. If he is a man, he can't. There will be no grounds for a claim of sex or GR discrimination. Even if "he" turns out to be a female on testosterone.

And the judges did explain how the two acts interact - Sex first, GR a subgroup.

I want rid of the GRA as much as you do, but there's no point in misstating the law. The conflict has been resolved. Sex comes first.

Cross-post-erama
Soz, all

Just to add that it seems the Times has a third column about this. This time looking at the party politicals is partly making the mess.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trans-guidance-bridget-phillipson-9jjp775bt
Also at https://archive.is/PmeRG

I don’t think it’s a great headline by the times. Trans people could be banned from single sex spaces based on how they look… a v provocative interpretation. In most cases, trans people aren’t being ‘banned’ from single sex spaces… they are simply being told to use the correct single sex space. The one exception is where a trans man might be told not to use the ladies if they present as very masculine. In practice, these examples are probably going to be very, very rare. Alarm bells are most likely to ring among women service providers/ users based on appearance (unnaturally big/ tall for a woman) or behaviour (creepy/ threatening) and at least a user can now be challenged on these things. But I agree that allowing people to rewrite official documentation is now looking like an even bigger misstep.