,
6 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1) We welcome the @WomenEqualities recommendation that updated guidance is needed to make it clear when and how service providers can invoke the single-sex exemptions to lawfully exclude trans people from female-only services. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cm… 
@WomenEqualities 2) The original @EHRC guidance published in 2011 is out of date and was developed w/o women's groups advocating for sex-based rights of females. This led to confusing legal interpretation suggesting single-sex is still be single sex even if the opposite sex are included!
@WomenEqualities @EHRC 3) This conflation 'single-sex' with 'single-gender' meant that the @EHRC needed to publish a clarification in 2018 making it beyond doubt that a transwomen without a GRC is still a member of the male sex and should be treated as such under law.
equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/ne…
equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/ne…
@WomenEqualities @EHRC 4) So it is disappointing that the @WomenEqualities report have ignored this latest clarification and again added to confusion by conflating sex and gender. This statement here means that single-sex service for women = female sex + male sex who identity as female. NO.
@WomenEqualities @EHRC 5) Sex is a protected characteristic & the word single-sex needs to retain its legal & social meaning otherwise it becomes meaningless & women lose the language they need to talk about their sex-based rights. If @WomenEqualities can't be clear on what sex means this is a problem.
@WomenEqualities @EHRC 6) It is vital that women's groups who specifically advocate for the sex-based rights of women & girls are involved in the development of any new statutory code. And that this extends far beyond discussions about women's refuges. We need clarity in sports, changing rooms, schools
