For example the Code of Practice says that where an employee is transitioning the employer should talk to them about using *different* facilities.
Stonewall say that all facilities are provided based on gender-self identity
"gender identity" they say can be used interchangeably with "gender reassignment"
The impact of this is that they tell employers *not* to monitor the protected characteristic of sex, but only "gender identity"
.... trans women are women you see.
What they subtly misstate here is that the protection against discrimination in the Equality Act does not mean that a person has changed sex
Here they say they don't want to ban the word "mother" they just want to redefine it, and make it impossible to use to describe the rights of actual mothers.
In their view a man who has fathered a child can be a "mother"
Does Stonewall see a conflict between employers obligations to protect "LGBTQ+" (that's not a protected characteristic!) and gender critical employees.
No they say...
Why then did they lead this open letter condemning the EHRC for intervening in my case?
Why did their Head of Trans Inclusion email Garden Court Chambers to complain about Allison Bailey express gender critical views on the internet and chairing a WPUK meeting?
With one breath they say protection for GC beliefs are "very narrow", and with the next they tell employers to go above and beyond the law.
In fact protection against harassment & discrimination is the same for any PCs. That's why its called the *Equality* Act
Its normal to use everyday language to describe the law they say ....
... but also the Equality Act doesn't use the term "biological sex" 🙄
The EHRC's new guidance on single-sex services is confusing therefore.
(everyone knows "sex" means what Judith Butler says, its not confusing at all... )
This is what the Equality Act says.
Sex discrimination includes discrimination related to pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding.
(But its nothing to do with biological sex says Stonewall)
This is nonsense.
There is an *exception* which allows the provision of single-sex services.
The Equality Act sets out a list of circumstances where these exceptions can be applied. It does not mention "gender identity"
Being a Stonewall Diversity Champion or Workplace Equality member does not affect impartiality they say
They email Diversity Champions members and encourage them to tweet in support of Stonewall's preferred legal changes.
And then award them Workplace Equality Index points for doing so.
Are we campaigning to amend the Equality Act. No they. say.
Meanwhile what they told the Women and Equality Select Committee was yes.
This is what Nancy Kelley said about Stonewall's desire to influence the BBC
This is what the Information Commissioner's Office says
"Such is the potential for a scheme to be misused as a campaigning tool, the Commissioner considers that there is an unusually strong public interest in transparency. "
What they don't say is that the advice they have been giving to members to claim "commercial interests" and "confidentiality" is not in line with the law, according to the ICO
Organisations that are concerned: This is bad advice.
Don't look to Stonewall's FAQ or unpublished legal advice to get the facts or the law straight.
Ask your general counsel, not the LGBTQ+ team or your social media colleagues.
Promote real inclusion, which recognises that everyone has equal human rights.
Everyone has a sex, and there are important legal protections against sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, belief discrimination and for "gender reassignment".
[ENDS]
And the thread keeps going....
Are they or aren't they involved with nursery schools?
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.
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.