EHRC announce single-sex exemptions guidlines, they suck!



Not only do the guidelines announced regarding single-sex exemptions suck, but they are probably unlawful and will not survive judicial review.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner’s EHRC has come under fire from the trans community once again as it continues to try and overcorrect its sense of balance in favour of transphobia. We are constantly told that all parties must be considered and there needs to be a fair balancing of rights, however it seems that trans people’s rights are often left out of the equation altogether.

For a quick catch-up on the single-sex exemptions; they are a caveat within the Equality Act 2010 which allows for service providers to exclude transgender people from spaces. It does this by ignoring acquired sex via a GRC and our protected characteristic via gender reassignment to focus on “birth sex”. This comes with a very high bar to meet, with the exact wording being “a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim”. It must be a high bar as it constitutes a lawful example of discrimination.

So far this language and the severity of the concept has helped to stave off attempts by transphobes to employ single-sex exemptions with a blanket approach. Meaning it can only be employed on a case-by-case basis and there must be a truly legitimate aim. However Kishwer Falkner’s EHRC has been making moves to support transphobic groups who would like to see the exemptions employed more liberally.

In guidance titled: “Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions”, EHRC set out what they refer to as a practical guide on the law for these kinds of spaces. This is the opinion of the EHRC as legal experts, however we’ve already seen what happens when these legal experts have their beliefs tested in court.

We saw this via Ann Sinnott, an LGB Alliance founder, attempting to seek judicial review in order to employ her view of single-sex exemptions. Sinnott was denied the review being told her view was “absurd” and “wrong in law”. This in part spurred on by the ‘Reindorf Review’ which attempted to claim Stonewall was misrepresenting the law surrounding single-sex exemptions. Akua Reindorf now works for EHRC.

Other news regarding single-sex exemptions includes the impassioned speech given in the House of Lords by Lord Etherton. He spoke on the single-sex exemptions and what a “legitimate aim” must be in order to meet the very high bar that has been set. Mere discomfort with transgender people is not enough to meet that bar. Meaning groups like Women’s Aid who turn away transgender women could be opening themselves up to legal dispute.

Further we can even look into the reasons the GRA was initially passed; one of them being privacy. Trans people, like all people, have a human right to privacy which means people can’t just demand to know you are transgender on the street or outside of a bathroom, for example. That’s not even getting into the human right to dignity and how that would apply.

Put simply; the idea that the EHRC put forwards in their “practical guide” in which they suggest things like people taking a “patient survey” on whether to let trans people pee in peace or not just do not work inside of a legal frame work. They are not only unenforceable, they do not respect the privacy, safety or dignity of transgender people and they still wouldn’t be enough for transphobes. As invariably polls have shown great support for including transgender people in spaces already.

The single-sex exemptions propose quite a conundrum for legal experts everywhere. There is no discounting that they exist, but how they work and whether an individual lawyer’s interpretation of them would stand up in court is really a guessing game. To my limited and not lawyer-like knowledge a judge has never ruled on single-sex exemptions, meaning there is no case law we can base decisions off of.

It’s my view that they should be scrapped entirely. They just don’t make sense. There is no way to justify employing them as being a “proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim”. Guidance surrounding this even states it has to take the “least discriminatory path possible”, which in every single case would be to exclude the person acting with prejudice towards a transgender person. Not the transgender person for just existing.

I don’t think a lawyer would be able to ever successfully argue them in court and if that’s the case, why do they exist at all other than to be used as a looming threat over trans lives? Forget that, get rid of them.

Gemma Stone
Gemma Stone is a transgender writer who has been covering the rise of transphobic hate campaigning in the UK. She has written hundreds of articles dissecting aspects of transphobia including debunking blatant disinformation. She is very tired and trying her best, and hopefully having a positive impact on such a beautiful community.

Subscribe to TransWrites

━ latest

Chest binding study; “over 97% reported at least one negative health outcome”

A study on chest binding is being bandied about by the anti-trans crowd due to the eye catching statistic reported in the abstract. "Over 97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to binding". But what does this actually mean?

Chest binding; organisations who provide safety information are a “beacon of light”

With all the talk of chest binders after mainstream media took aim at them and Mermaids UK we are seeing the same pattern. The voices of those actually affected by the issues are not being heard. Correcting that for Trans Writes is Keith Ramsted with his chest binding story about the need for harm reduction;

Mermaids UK criticised by British media (and JK Rowling) for giving chest binder to teenager

Children's charity and parental support group Mermaids UK have come under fire from the usual transphobic suspects trying to demonise any and all support for trans youth. This time over the use and support of teens using a chest binder. JK Rowling was there too, in case you cared.

Kevin Lister fired over treatment of transgender student

Kevin Lister, a teacher from Swindon, was fired and is now taking legal action against his former school. He was fired regaridng his treatment of a transgender student.

Tribunal finds trans woman was discriminated against

An employment tribunal has found that a trans woman was discriminated against when she was asked about her use of the changing areas. This discrimination was based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.