For which services is separate by "gender" appropriate?

[MyAmpleSheep]

Assuming it to be compliant with all relevant legislation (which is another discussion), which public services make more (or enough) sense to separate by self-defined gender rather than by sex?

We are often told that segregating by sex is permissible but not the only way to split "men" and "women" and that it's proportionate and appropriate to split men-identifiers from women-identifiers in some services in "appropriate circumstances" or some other phrase.

What are those services, and what are the appropriate circumstances?

This is a question about services, so I'm explicitly not referring to what the EA2010 covers under associations. Social groups are not services, and they can already be split or made exclusive in a much wider range of ways; I'm not asking about them. Only about public services. For clarity it's probably best to avoid terminology like "single sex spaces" because it's easy to misunderstand whether a "space" is a service - or an association.

So - which services can appropriately be segregated as women+trans-identifying men (women+ "trans women") and men+trans-identifying women (men + "trans men")?

Visitors are restricted to visiting at certain times of day so aren't comparable to patients.

I think it would. Totally different to, say, Yaniv demanding a ball waxing from women untrained to do it.

And how about finding yourself dumped in the side room of a male ward when completely helpless, not being able to see where you are, having no idea that you are next to a male ward and no idea how ambulant any of those men might be?
Oh and nobody thinks to mention that's were you were whisked off to in the middle of the night!

I'm not sure i understand the question. I don't really recognise "gender" and I don't think the law does in this context either.

Surely you provide a service either (1) to each sex separately, or (2) you lump everybody in together with no separation?

So you either make separate provision for men and women or you make no distinction at all

I can't imagine a service which could legitimately be provided to women and transwomen but not to men, and similarly I can't imagine one that could legitimately be provided to men and transmen, but not to women.

"Gender" and/or "trans" makes no sense in this context...

I had spinal surgery as a young teen and was unable to so much as lift my own head or arms for a week. I was in a side room off scbu and a nurse told my parents (after they mentioned I might prefer to be on the general children's ward for company) that the children's ward was mixed sex and had several unattended teenage boys admitted and plenty of dads visiting. 🤷‍♀️

For the OP I can't think of anything that needs to be or would benefit from being segregated by gender identity, merely because everything I try and think of, such as the example given above of a hairdresser, applies to both women and men. Both my daughters and my son all have beautiful long curly hair(and all use the same hairdresser!!)

I can vouch for that! In the barbers I go to, there is one who will cut my hair, the others [very amiably and pleasantly] said 'no we don't do women's hair' the first time I asked.

I think there's some way they can wriggle out of it, equality-law-wise, but I'm not sure.

The 'professional' explanation I've been given is that women are much more demanding and detailed about how they want their hair cut, and barbers are afraid that if they give them a straight barber cut, the women won't actually like the end result.

I think that's the same 'justification' for charging a woman twice as much as a man for the same haircut - women require more input and attention and that kind of thing. Or something🙄

As for the OP's question, 'For which services is separate by "gender" appropriate?', given that there's no settled definition of 'gender', I think my answer has to be a definite 'nun'.

Sorry, that should be 'none'😁

Discrimination by self-id-gender and discrimination by sex are inextricably linked given that 99.9% of the population would divide themselves up the same whichever you used.

The drafters of the EA played it very smart by defining not "gender" but "gender reassignment" as a PC. And then to prove the point the Act specifically permits "gender reassignment discrimination" in the case of single-sex services.

Meanwhile places like Canada sunk their ships before they'd left harbour by saying that nobody should be discriminated against by sex or by "gender". You can't avoid picking one or the other to protect, leading to arguments about the hierarchy of protected characteristics that we have avoided.

I think this is a good question and I wish someone on the GI side would try to answer it, because it seems to me that the answer has to be None not just pragmatically but also on principle. As soon as we identify a service that can be segregated by gender, we are telling a man who does not identify as a woman that there's something he can't be admitted to, because of how he (says he) identifies. That's not only ridiculous, it feels like unreasonable discrimination to me (regardless of whether it actually is illegal, I think it should be - saying magic words shouldn't get someone access to a service they'd otherwise be excluded from, too much moral hazard by half).

The one that comes up is breast screening. Men taking wrong sex hormones can be at an elevated risk of cancer, therefore need to be included in breast screening services.

Although I know men without 'female' gender who have had breast cancer, and obviously lots of men with 'female' gender dont take any cross sex hormones, so will not need to be screened. And of course women with 'male' gender need the service. So is it really a gendered service?

I'm sure this will turn into the usual attacks on anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Mumsnet GC hardlines, but I'll give it a go while I'm here. Any that wish to - is my answer. If a service wishes to offer their services to women+trans women then I really don't mind. No-one is forced to use the service so I think it comes down to individual choice. If you wish to use a service as a woman that welcomes trans women then use that service. If you wish to use only a single sex service then use that service. Both should be able to exist side by side.

In theory, both can exist. But the question is what is a single gendered service? What service is it providing?

No attacks. So, to be clear, every service?

Would that extend to a single-gender supermarket?
Or a single-gender airport?

does your permissivity extend to other characteristics? If a service provider wanted to provide a black-people only photography service, is that ok? How about a bakery only for white people?

I'm asking to see where your limits are.

That’s great. They can call the mixed sex services “mixed sex services”. That may not make the men wanting to access “woman only” spaces happy but there’s no reason for them to complain. They just can’t call the mixed sex services”men’s” or “women’s” services. Like they could have the WI and the Peoples Institute. That would work. Anyone who wanted to could access the People’s institute, which would serve any member of either sex who wished to join, and the Women’s institute would be female only. The only thing the peoples institute could not do is exclude anyone of either sex.

But then you have to define "trans women"
because the law does not allow that to require drugs or surgery

so a bloke can walk in off the street and say he is trans one day
and not trans the next

to allow him in on the first day but not the second
discriminates against all other men

No-one is forced to use the service so I think it comes down to individual choice.

If nobody is excluded, that is just a mixed sex service.

I said 'any that wish to'. So if you wish to launch a service then you'd probably hope that there was enough call to sustain it. The reality is that there isn't a call for a single-gender airport, or even supermarket - though I suspect there are many shops that are single-gender by virtue of what they sell, rather than who they sell to. I'm very live and let live. Your examples are exclusive whereas mine are inclusive. There's a link - though disputed by some here - between sex and gender for many people - and that brings those aspects together in a way that wouldn't be the same for a racial issue.

What is the difference between your examples and a mixed sex service?

I recognise - as do many other people - that trans people exist. While a trans woman is male, she is not a 'man' in either thought or presentation. You may disagree - and I'm sure there will be screams of 'HE'S A MAN!!!!111' being typed out even more - but I'm trying to explain why I believe there's a difference. And again - before I'm accused of all manner of nonsense - I believe single sex spaces should mean single sex.

I'm intrigued by the fact that you can say someone is male but not a man. It baffles me.

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I am asking you the grounds on which you would be excluding anyone.

While a trans woman is male, she is not a 'man' in either thought or presentation.

This seems to suggest a narrower understanding of 'trans' than that proposed by e.g. Stonewall.

Thought and presentation is irrelevant. I can't put on a leotard and expect to be accepted as an Olympic gymnast.

A personal shopper / stylist service in the men's / women's department? The service is provided based on gender norms & current men's/ women's styles rather than sex. The person delivering the service is a specialist in styling that gender.

Because trans people exist. They are recognised.

Nobody objects to mixed-sex services.