radiofree.asia

Greens demand EHRC scrap ‘harsh and ill-considered’ trans guidance – but what of Adrian Ramsay?

Speaking to the BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer has called out the ‘interim guidance’ published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on trans rights:

The Supreme Court decision and the fallout

As reported by the Canary, the UK’s Supreme Court recently ruled on the how the law views trans people:

In a decision which has all the hallmarks of TERF Island, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer exclusively to characteristics assigned at birth – thanks to a campaign by anti-trans campaigners who have mobilised under anti-feminist left hate campaigns and far-right hate movements.

This judgment, delivered by Lord Hodge, has significant implications for the rights of transgender women across the UK, as well as other members of gender queer communities.

Our article also noted:

The case was brought forward by the anti-trans campaign group For Women Scotland, which has a history of challenging the inclusion of trans women in definitions of “woman” within Scottish legislation . Their legal challenge was supported by author and anti-trans bigot J.K. Rowling, who contributed £70,000 to the cause.​

The group predictably argued that the inclusion of trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) in the definition of “woman” diluted the meaning of the term and infringed upon the rights of cisgender women.

They sought a legal interpretation that would exclude trans women from this category, regardless of their legal recognition.​

This ruling effectively excludes trans women, even those with GRCs, from legal protections and opportunities afforded to cisgender women under the Equality Act.

The decision drew significant criticism:

Now, the EHRC has issued an “interim update”, stating:

We know that many people have questions about the judgment and what it means for them. Our updated guidance will provide further clarity. While this work is ongoing, this update is intended to highlight the main consequences of the judgment. Employers and other duty-bearers must follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary.

Far from clarifying the Supreme Court decision, however, it’s actually leading to more confusion, as QUEER AF note:

The guidance sets out the definition that a trans woman is a biological man, and a trans man is a biological woman. On this basis it sets out:

  • Trans women “should not be permitted to use” the women’s facilities, and trans men “should not be permitted to use” the men’s on the basis continued access would mean they are not ‘single-sex’
  • In some circumstances, the law also allows trans women to be prevented from using the men’s facilities, and trans men can be prevented from using the women’s.
  • Trans people should not be left in a position where there are no facilities to use, even if only facilities for ‘biological’ men and women are provided
  • Organizations that have public spaces, including workplaces, should provide mixed-sex facilities. Further, stipulating cubicles is not sufficient; but they must be single lockable rooms intended for the use of one person at a time.

Speaking out over the EHRC trans rights guidance

Speaking to Kuenssberg, Denyer said:

We’re really worried that the guidance from the EHRC is has been rushed, clearly. It’s been ill-thought out in my opinion, and it’s really obvious that they have not listened to trans people – possibly not consulted them at all – in the in the preparation of this guidance. And it seems to fly in the face of the strong tradition of tolerance we have in Britain. For example, the EHRC guidance seems to be saying that if a lesbian association or venue wants to include trans women – and and let’s bear in mind that lesbian women, non-trans lesbian women are amongst the most supportive of trans people in the whole of society – the… advice… it seems to say that they won’t be allowed to.

Denyer also said:

The Greens are calling for the guidance to be withdrawn. It’s clearly rushed and ill-thought out, and they haven’t consulted all the people who’d be affected. Okay. We’re saying: withdraw it, think again, consult everyone who’d be affected by this guidance, and then come out with something more thought out.

Denyer has previously called for clarity on the Supreme Court ruling:

The Greens are drawing some criticism for their own lack of clarity, however, as this statement from the Young Greens shows:

On 23 April, Adrian Ramsay MP, co-leader of the Green Party, was interviewed on the Today programme on the topic of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of woman and sex under the Equality Act. In this interview, Adrian was asked 5 times whether he believes trans women are women. He failed to give an answer to this question.

As the youth and student wing of the Green Party, we are unequivocally pro trans and agree with the Green Party policy that states “Trans men are men, trans women are women and non-binary identities are real and valid.” We are therefore disappointed to see the co-leader of the party failing to show solidarity with trans people following the fear caused by this ruling. It is vital that as a progressive party we are united in our support of marginalised people and that must include trans people and the entire LGBTIQA+ community. We call on all elected Greens to use their voice to speak up for trans people and engage with the trans community on issues that affect their rights.

We want to reassure trans members of the Young Greens that we remain pro trans and will never back down from calling out transphobia wherever it appears.

Wider criticism of the EHRC trans rights guidance

Many are criticising the EHRC’s intervention:

 

Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer described the situation as follows:

Steph Richards of the trans advocacy and human rights group TransLucent made the following legal points:

(1) As part of the process to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), a trans person has to sign a Statutory Declaration (SD) witnessed by a solicitor (or similar) that they will live the rest of their life in their new gender.

In other words, trans men will live like men, and trans women will live life as women. SDs are a promise to the Crown, and if someone breaks the promise, it’s a criminal offence by way of the Perjury Act 1911. The punishment is up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. GRC holders are apparently now unable to live like ordinary people. Are they breaking their SD?

(2) To gain a GRC, the applicant must live in their chosen gender for two years. This requirement is often known as “Real Life Experience”. I take that to mean trans men use male facilities and trans women use female facilities. Does the judgment raise the possibility that GRC applicants may not be able to fulfil this obligation and, consequently, no one can apply for a GRC?

(3) The UK has encompassed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) requirements into the Human Rights Act 1998. I suspect there are three issues here.

(3a) Does the judgment and EHRC advice amount to inhuman or degrading treatment of trans people?

(3b) What about freedom of expression?

(3c) We all have a right to a private life (as outlined in Article 8 of the ECHR). Does the judgment and advice from the EHRC contravene those rights?

Legal arguments abound. The discrimination lawyer Robin Moira White has suggested that the EHRC’s advice (also known as an “interim update”) appears to be a potential breach of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the ECHR.

We should not be surprised by the EHRC advice. The Tories, (as part of their culture war) packed the EHRC with gender-critical activists.

The Telegraph headlined Falkner saying she is gender-critical. Henderson has strong links with the evangelical right. Reindorf has links to the trans-hostile LGB Alliance, which has used the address of 55 Tufton St.

Yesterday, at the Southampton protest, a historian gave a speech calling the current situation “the cycle of persecution”.

One thing is obvious.

The Labour Government proudly announced its plan to recover the UK’s global reputation as a leader in LGBT human rights.

Just now, that ambition is in tatters.

Confusion and oppression

Buck Angel, pictured below, is one of the rare trans people who have spoken favourably about the UK Supreme Court’s decision. Angel is also a trans man, which would mean he’d likely be using women’s bathrooms and changing rooms in the UK if the EHRC had their way:

The Supreme Court ruling has made Britain an outlier when it comes to global trans rights, and the EHRC guidance has done nothing besides confuse things even further.

Featured image via BBC

By The Canary

This post was originally published on Canary.