One of the worst things about being cancelled, is being cancelled. un-personned, discontinued, sent to Coventry.
I've never met Søren but I am grateful that he has been one of the few people in #globaldev to stand up and point to me & @CGDev and say 'do you see this happening?'
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.
Here we are at @LSELaw for a legal panel discussion on the FWS case. Video will be available later.
Naomi Cunningham says the ruling changes very little .. and it changes everything.
Under the old understanding there was a route to exclude men with GRCs from women only services but it was unclear and uncertain. It sounded difficult to operate. And the @EHRC statutory code said case by case.
So the lineage of that policy that Sussex University has just been fined £0.5m for goes back via Advance HE and the Equality Challenge Unit to the SWP! 🤯
I have seen quite a lot of this question going around.
Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.
It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men"
The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways.
There will be much talk of the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act over the next few days.
These are the exceptions that allow service providers to offer services that are only open to one sex or the other (found at Schedule 3 Part 7 of the Act). (1/7)
Without these provisions service providers would be committing sex discrimination by excluding men or women.
Service providers don’t need to “use these exceptions” to exclude people, they just provide the service in the normal way. If they were to get sued they (or a lawyer) can point to the exceptions to show the service is lawful. (2/7)
The exceptions disapply both the prohibitions against sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination.
Again service providers don’t have to “use the exceptions” to exclude someone based on a particular protected characteristic. (3/7)