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

The archived article which was a separate article, also from last night, says:

https://archive.is/TKE7n

The guidance sets out how it would be lawful for a transgender person to be asked about their biological sex, in order to preserve single-sex spaces. The decision to ask could be based on, among other things, their appearance.

If there is doubt about whether they are telling the truth, other matters would then need to be taken into account when deciding whether to exclude them.

I assume that if an organisation has followed a process (maybe there is one suggested in the guidance) and they feel that ID has been changed, as long as they have followed a process and found reason to suspect, they can still exclude.

I hope this is the case.

What we need is a change in societal attitudes, so that it once again becomes unacceptable to most people for a man to enter women's spaces, and so that man claiming to be women (and vice versa) are not affirmed in their false claim. I do, however, have concerns that the pendulum may swing too far and society may become too unaccepting of eccentricity and we may get pushback not only against bad behaviour but against anyone who doesn't conform to stereotypes and norms.

In other words, we need some societal boundaries but they need to be in a sensible place, and some degree of pushing boundaries is possible without breaking the boundaries. Boundaries and norms protect people from harm, but can be over-restrictive. The law has a place in setting boundaries, but is a blunt instrument for enforcing them. Societal pressures are the usual way of doing this. We used to have a fairly consistent conservative set of expectations. In pointing out that some of them (the taboo against divorce, for example) had some bad consequences, we have opened ourselves up to a society with no consensus. How do we get to a society with consensus on boundaries, but not at the conservative (rigid and overly constraining) or liberal (absolutely anything goes) extremes?

That headline and that article demonstrate that the writer of the article does not themselves really understand either the ruling or the guidance issued.

What happened to personal responsibility? If as a car driver, you speed, you get points and a fine. Why not penalise males who enter womens single sex spaces?

The article seems to be focusing, bizarrely, on the legitimacy of questioning a trans identified man if he entered into a female only facility, rather than on the fact that he shouldn't be there in the first place; and that if he is - both he, and the organisation that permits or encourages, it is liable.

There needs to be the same public relations and training work regarding women, women's equalities and needs that was dropped on the public regarding trans people.

Signs on doors mentioning the need to respect women's comfort and dignity. The stories of women given air time and head tilty interviews. Training courses where passing requires giving the right answers regarding ensuring women's equality and access rather than subordinating it to men's.

This would however require an establishment with a commitment to women's equality. And a set starting point in meeting all men's needs of 'this action or solution cannot begin in removing anything from anyone else'. Rather than seeing the starting point as removing from women and then trying to justify and clean up after the mess.

Exactly! But the article has been framed in such a way as to further muddy the waters.

Reading around, I wonder if this is a rather softly soaped version of addressing the main fear of businesses, which will be 'what do I do, faced with a large, shouty man bellowing 'call me ma'am' and threatening to hurt/sue everyone'.

The answer being that those men need to expect to be stopped and questioned if they enter women's spaces, and if they argue one thing but are obviously another, they can be refused entry. Without this putting the business in legal danger, and the business confidently knowing this before the conversation even arises.

Isn't this requirement totally unclear because "gender" doesn't have a consistent definition? I would be quite happy for there to be "gender recognition" if it was clear that gender doesn't mean sex (but does mean societal views of "femininity" and "masculinity"), and that gender recognition has no effect on one's legal sex and the protected characteristic of sex. We would need all official documents and all organisations (such as the NHS) to stop muddling sex and gender, so that where sex is recorded it is actually sex, and additionally gender may be recorded (feminine, masculine, "non-binary" and "couldn't care less").

I might be reading this slightly differently - but doesn't this simply tie back to the SC judgement in which there was comment that:

• no men in women's spaces
• no women in men's spaces
• some women (trans men) / men (trans women) may have had enough surgery to look sufficiently like the opposite sex and therefore may legitimately also be denied access to their own sex's space

So the discussion is about what happens when John who wants to be Johanna goes off and has surgery to look like a woman...

• the SC judgement and guidance say that John is not allowed in the women's loos as they are single sex and for women and he is a man, whatever he looks like...
• so John toddles off to the gents where he is ejected for 'appearing to be a woman' (may be validation - but he now has nowhere to pee).

As I understand it the SC judgement and the guidance say that this is acceptable - it stops a man from claiming that actually he is biologically a woman who has 'changed to look like a man'.

Maybe a better example is a lady - Roberta who has top surgery and takes hormones to grow a beard to present as Robert - valid to exclude her from the gents as she is a woman / valid to exclude her from the ladies as she appears to be a man...

Fundamentally it is not usually difficult to spot whether someone is a man / woman biologically - however they present - so we are talking about a small minority of situations - and while it means that John has nowhere to pee - equally, he has chosen to surgically mutilate himself to the point where it is difficult to understand who or what he represents, and ultimately is that not his choice / issue - not the issue for others...?

Because there are some legitimate reasons why a male may be in a female single sex space or vice versa.

Trying to implement a law that penalises a male / female for being in a female / male space would be completely unworkable.

I completely agree.

This was always going to happen.

It's a point that's come up quite frequently over the years. That if a man is standing there, and all his documentation says he's a woman, as does he, what are you supposed to do?

Fortunately, now, the guidance says you can still tell him to sling his hook.

And, of course, there IS no other way to deal with this.

They've just made it completely okay to forcibly exclude someone, based on visual evidence.

It's the only possible recourse, if documentary evidence isn't relevant.

And they can't even take you to court. Because then, the real sex of the person will come out.

And if you are actually wrong, they've clarified that it's not discrimination.

Job done.

It's all along the same lines that if a woman identifies as a man and frightens the women in the changing room, because she looks so male, you can exclude her.

They really are closing all the loopholes. Snapping them shut, in fact.

A lot of places that sell alcohol have "Challenge 25" signage; which is basically saying we are going to ask people who may well be several years older than 18 to show ID so don't be offended. An earlier version was for age 21 and was set up by retailers specifically to manage expectations for younger customers, and to make it easier for the staff who had to ask.

We need to re-set expectations around toilets in a similar manner.

Setting aside the need to challenge, what this does do - emphatically - is decouple sex from gender for good.

If you choose to be a trans-identifying man or woman that is your choice. No one can discriminate against you for it. But it does not change your sex. One of the consequences may be you can only use mixed-sex spaces. But you cannot discriminate against others by violating their single-sex boundaries.

If trans is not a mental illness or a physical manifestation, it has to be a lifestyle choice. There's no other option.

This.

This is the part that responds to men, thinking of one in particular with a well known social media profile, who is passionate about his belief of being a 'cis woman' and when provided with gender neutral alternatives will make a point of going to use the women's single sex space to meet his own needs.

This is where he will need to face that trying to do so will result in him being challenged and redirected, and this will be the right and legal thing to do because women have rights and needs as well as him .

Absolutely men should not face less equality of legal rights or discrimination than others for gender expression. Absolutely they should have usable facilities if they do not feel safe or able to use the ones for their sex, or have now changed appearance to the point of causing confusion and interfering with those of their sex being able to use facilitie.

But they will equally need to accept the hard reality that women are a biological reality they cannot share in, and that those women have needs and resources that are not available to them. Alternatives can be provided and developed, but they cannot take away the women's. Or be women by sex. Arguably it would have been one hell of a lot kinder to have held by the boundaries of reality and been clear about them about 15 years ago.

I would like it made a criminal offence in certain situations to lie about your sex if it is related to safeguarding or healthcare. No it's no buts because sex is not gender.

Exactly and as another poster pointed out the real issue is that a person is allowed to get an ID that states false information about their sex. There's no doubt this is going to cause problems so the next logical step is to get rid of self ID and simply make the law that sex on an ID must = biological sex. Otherwise what is even the point of the ID?

Exactly and as another poster pointed out the real issue is that a person is allowed to get an ID that states false information about their sex. There's no doubt this is going to cause problems so the next logical step is to get rid of self ID and simply make the law that sex on an ID must = biological sex. Otherwise what is even the point of the ID?

In the context of the SCJ's reasoning, I read the whole thing of "they may be excluded if they appear to be the opposite sex" as referring to a pretty limited set of circumstances - e.g. a refuge may exclude a TIF who looks sufficiently male to alarm vulnerable females in a single sex space.

As we might have expected, the argument around this has been broadened out because:

• lots of TIMs have convinced themselves they pass well as female when they really don't
• lots of TIMs, who may or may not sincerely believe they pass, are highly motivated to find any loophole that will let them into a female SSS

Bridget Phillipson is saying she's taking her time with the guidance because she wants to get it right. Okay then.

What that should mean is that the guidance says you use the facilities of your biological sex, or unisex facilities if available, and if there are very narrow exceptions they will be laid out in such an unambiguous way that it will be very hard to use them as a wedge.

What I fear it means is that Phillipson, under pressure from Labour MPs, will seek to pepper the guidance with so many loopholes that in effect we've got Stonewall Law back.

If she does the latter, I don't know what the options are - maybe a JR to force her to produce lawful guidance? And I wonder how Phillipson's approach will be affected by how much indulgence the courts show towards Jolyon trying to get loopholes added into the SCJ based on the hard luck stories of random transfolx.

Bagsintheboot

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.

I dont think you followed the Supreme Court FWS case in April? They stated that single sex means single sex and what sex you are is and remains for life, the one you were born as.

There is a difference between recognizing someone's gender identity and allowing their sex registration to be overwritten by that gender identity. Currently in the EU, including the European Court of Human Rights, there is a tendency to conflate gender identity and sex registration. However, the more countries that implement it, the more men abuse it and the bigger pushback it gets.
The ECHR also has multiple times stated that article 8 can be ignored when it impacts other members of society. So even if this ever gets to that court, chances are the ECHR will not disagree the SC judgement as that judgement protects both women as well as transpeople.

Many commentators seem to miss the point that the default position is that sex discrimination is UNLAWFUL.

For sex discrimination to be lawful it must meet certain criteria, and if those criteria aren't met (e.g. by including some men) then the discrimination is unlawful and the service should be mixed sex.

Either it's possible to have single sex spaces or it isn't, and any government or political party that believes that it isn't needs to make that argument clearly to the electorate, and not pretend it's all up to someone else.

I’m not saying no one has abused it. Does the tiny percentage of people abusing the system mean we should remove it for the majority trying to quietly live their lives?