1. The privacy rights of transgender people 2. The need of service providers for clarity in order to treat everyone well 3. Respect for the privacy & freedoms of others (particularly women & girls)
1) @GEOgovuk & @EHRC should urgently review national guidance. They should clarify that the Equality Act does not give individuals the right to use services provided for the privacy or needs of members of the opposite sex
2) Public bodies should be instructed to withdraw misleading guidance.
All state funded bodies should review existing policies on single sex service services to ensure they are compliant with their duties under the Equality Act.
Guidance, policies or training suggesting that expecting bodily privacy from the opposite sex is ‘bigotry,’ or encouraging people who identify as trans to believe they are entitled to share spaces which are designated for the privacy of the opposite sex — should not be promoted.
3) Amend the GRA 2004 to exclude any effect of s.9 (which changes a person’s sex “for all purposes”) and the Equality Act 2010,
For the purposes of the 2010 Act, “sex” should mean biological sex.
4) Simplify the system for trans people to obtain birth certificate privacy.
Replace medicalised GRCs with a super simple administrative system to enable anyone to obtain a copy of their short-form birth certificate with the ‘sex’ field left blank.
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)
Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said.
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act.
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act.
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”
Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in
He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”
OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”
This is distraction.
Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:
- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”
“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.