Men’s charities ask EHRC to clarify code as implementation nears

[IwantToRetire]

A group of men’s charities has signed a letter to the equalities watchdog, asking it to clarify how their services should implement its new code of practice.

More than 20 leaders of not-for-profit organisations providing services to men and boys warned the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that its guidance could lead to unfair accusations of workplace discrimination.

The EHRC’s new code, updated following last year’s Supreme Court ruling which concluded that “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “biological sex”, will come into force on 5 August.
However, the letter argues that there is a clash between sex-based rules and gender protections.

“The recently updated draft […] appears to have created contradictory obligations, operational uncertainty, and risks to service continuity for our sector,” reads the letter penned by Ally Fogg, Association for Male Health and Wellbeing chair.

In particular, the letter takes issue with guidance which states that male-only services must now be based on “biological sex”, while the act expects organisations not to treat trans or non-binary people “less favourably”.

“Our staff, volunteers and members often operate in emotionally charged environments involving trauma, crisis, or acute distress,” it reads.

“They may now be required to make rapid decisions [on complex matters].

“The risk of a procedural misstep is high and the consequences potentially severe.”

Article continues at https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/men-s-charities-ask-ehrc-to-clarify-code-as-implementation-nears.html

Slightly off topic, but maybe not.

Many years ago when the Guardian first had the option to comment on line, it was in fact really hard for women posting even basic feminists opinions, eg violence against women, discrimination at work, as these often got deleted.

And if not deleted, then a male commentator who seemed to have appointed himself as needing to school women on what they should say or think, would tell them about their wrong think. But any complaints to the Guardian about his sexism, mansplaining never got him deleted.

Then after what seemed like a very short time he was upgraded from just being a self opinionated male to being some sort of arbiter of "Guardian" feminism. I cant remember what the column he was given was called.

But I do remember his name was Ally Fogg.

Ally Fogg is an awful misogynist that would regularly make my blood boil on Twitter, before I left due to repeated blood boiling.

Just a typical smug TRA with no desire to have a good faith debate, and a clear enjoyment of talking down to any women who disagreed with him. Rancid person.

(Willy Fogg on the other hand is a handsome leonine explorer, a much better use of everyone's time.)

He was awful, had plenty of run ins with him both on Guardian CIF and Twitter. Sanctimonious, misogynistic prick.

Indeed 🦁

> In particular, the letter takes issue with guidance which states that male-only services must now be based on “biological sex”, while the act expects organisations not to treat trans or non-binary people “less favourably”.

Male-only services should treat males equally, whether they identify as non-binary or trans, fish or fowl, vegetable or vampire. Is that really so complicated?

What's with the endless clarifying? Wasn't the SC enough?

Forgive me if I've missed something.

just follow the fucking guidance, bros. You’ll have to get independent legal advice if you really need it “clarified” further.

welcome to our world chaps
except that...are they actually being besieged by aggressive and demanding transmen demanding to be included in their men's services? no?
thought not

I mean, whut?

Just being completely dense for no reason?

Ah well, they find the SC ruling impossible to understand because they know TWAW, so there must be a way to read the SC that allows for this. They are utterly flummoxed why it seems so hard to find this very obvious thing that clearly must be there. So they keep asking for "clarification" because the only clarification they will accept is one that says what they want to hear, even though it is impossible to make the SC judgement say that because it was not the conclusion of the judges that that is what the law is.

Yes, it is very hard to understand something if your ideology tells you it must say something other than what it actually says.

There is the TRA line that the SC judgment didn’t go as far as this and it’s the EHRC’s (and particularly Baroness Falkner and Mary Ann Stephenson - got to blame it on a woman) biased, captured agenda at fault.

And Bridget Philipson, even though she’s mostly
useless to us the TRAs hate her too.

Surely it just means that any support services they offer to men need to be clear that they are equally open to transwomen and nonbinary male people, who are male even if they don't accept the label of "man" - having their services available only to men who have a masculine gender identity would be treating trans people less favourably.

It's not about making them admit transmen (who are women) - they aren't being treated less favourably because all female people are excluded whether or not they are trans.

It's very simple. To not treat trans people less favourably you must offer your men only service to all men, including trans-identified men or 'trans women'. What you can't do is also offer your men only service to a subset of women i.e. trans-identified women or 'trans men'.

If you want to serve men and women you can set up a mixed service. If you want to serve men and trans-identified people you can set up a service for two protected characteristics - the male sex and 'gender reassignment' - but must include all with the each characteristic so both trans-identified men and women.

There you go, clarity provided completely free of charge.

In particular, the letter takes issue with guidance which states that male-only services must now be based on “biological sex”, while the act expects organisations not to treat trans or non-binary people “less favourably”.

Part of the problem is that a "charity sector" news paper has published this letter as though it is credible. Or if they were to publish they should have said it is a strange letter to write.

Even prior to the Supreme Court, any group that wanted to run a single sex service could do so (provided proportionate) meaning that even someone with a GRC would not be admitted.

So if you are running a single sex service then to start talking about an organisation is being less favourable to trans or non binary people is just delusional. Either they are single sex meaning trans and non binary are not eligible to the service, or they aren't running a single sex service as what they are describing is a trans inclusive one.

Are these people really thick, or do they think if they keep repeating this deliberate lie about somehow it is a new thing that trans people are excluded from the category "single sex" service even thought the phrase clearly states what / who the service is for.

So if not thick. then are they just part of the same we were Stonewalled so we use words in line with Stonewall's income generating misinformation.

This letter seems to be not at all concerned about their credibility and the brain capacity of those who wrote it, as it is just another vacuous virtue signalling exercise and has no basis in reality or legality

Both the magazine and the letter writers make the charity and the voluntary sector look total unprofessional and out of their depth.

I was going to suggest email the author of the article [email protected] but see in fact you can comment.

There are 3 comments two saying sex means sex and one apparently from Maya Forstater asking for a copy of the letter!!

I hope they send her one and we will be allowed to see her response to this complete nonsense.

I agree, what's not to understand fella's. It's just bizarre that 20 leaders of not-for-profit organisations can't get this and it calls into question their ability to lead.

This "confusion" and "worry" and "panic" is so performative. As @FlirtsWithRhinos has said, they just want the law to say something it doesn't say. Never mind that the law hasn't changed since 2010; it was clarified in April last year, so they've had plenty of time to get used to it.

It's TOO HARD.
It's TOO COMPLICATED.
It's TOO EXPENSIVE.
I DON'T WANNA! 😫

These people in charge shouldn't be in charge if they can't figure out how to obey the law.

Hey, boys, here's a tip: try thinking with your "brains" instead of with your johnsons!

Are they saying they don't want men who identify as women to use their services or that they do want women who identify as men to use their services? Or are they worried they'll have to identify whether someone is a male before they're allowed to use their services? In which case I'd suggest they're covered if they set the terms and conditions to include the statement that the service is for biological males only. I have to say, allowing someone to change their documented sex is looking like a very silly idea. Perhaps these groups should support repealing the gender recognition act.

I have to say, allowing someone to change their documented sex is looking like a very silly idea.

I agree, and I always thought it would lead society down some very unnecessary paths.

However, it doesn't matter if they have a "different documented sex" - the SC ruling was actually about that, and a piece of paper doesn't change any of your "sexes." For the purposes of public services and associations over 25 in number, a man is a man is a man. The end.

This is what men are, apparently, finding too difficult to understand. While most women seem to get it just fine. Funny that.

Here's an idea stop allowing people to falsified their sex on official documents, allowing a separate voluntary gender marker aswell as the unchangable sex marker. Then there only needs to be 1 question for everyone can i see some id please

Which charities? Can't see it in the article.

you know what I am obviously hopelessly naive
it never occurred to me these men were wanting to exclude some men and were looking for a way not to have to
so......they're not so much spectacularly stupid, not understanding they could lawfully exclude TIFs, as disingenuous and pretending not to understand they have to serve TIMs....? is that it, have I got it right now?

“the act expects organisations not to treat trans or non-binary people “less favourably”.
Thats the oxymoron right there, the act already treats trans and non-binary people less favourably and as a result needs to go to the ECHR to be struck down.