from Nick Wallis
NC
Second is Bethany Hutchison's compelling account of Rs failure to support nurses looking for sss - in the same a way another darlington nurse was failed by her union.
And finally PM's surprising stance in relation to Freda Wallace - that he could seemingly behave as badly as he liked on soc med without being expelled from the RCN. The unwillingness to hold TiMs to account or to say no to them - which has parallels with NHS Fife and GU is symptmatic of GI. No need to say R has lied - key evidence is Fair Care for Trans Patients
NC I'm not going to take you to v many of these egs, as the j from the SC is shot through with recognition that bio sex has imp prac conseq - and it has consqs for people who hve to provide single sex spaces so for eg at p55 of the j under the heading "sep and sss"
there are carve outs which permit sex discrim where permitted [reads out j]
[Found it!] "These provisions are directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas (that might be essential for religious reasons or desirable for the protection of a woman’s safety, or the autonomy or privacy and dignity of the two sexes) or medical or counselling services provided only to women (or men) – for example cervical cancer screening for women or prostate cancer screening for men, or counselling for women only as victims of rape or domestic violence."
NC and it goes on at par 213: "213.
If sex has its biological meaning in this paragraph, then a service-provider can separate male and female users as obvious and distinct groups. For example, a homeless shelter could have separate hostels for men and women provided this pursued a legitimate aim, which might be the safety and security of women users or their privacy and dignity (and the same for male users).
By contrast, if sex means certificated sex, the service- provider would have to allow access to trans women with a GRC (in other words, biological males who are female according to section 9(1)) to the women’s hostel. The following practical difficulties would arise.
First, it would be difficult or impossible for the service-provider to distinguish between trans women with and without a GRC because, as we have explained, the two groups are often visually or outwardly indistinguishable.
Secondly and more fundamentally, it is likely to be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the conditions necessary for separate services for each sex when each group includes persons of both biological sexes. For example, it is difficult to envisage how the condition in paragraph 26(2)(a) (a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective) could ever be fulfilled when each sex includes members of the opposite biological sex in possession of a GRC and excludes members of the same biological sex with a GRC."