Hi there,
Right, okay. My intention was to warn people so they could prepare for their own safety, but your response appears more focused on technical debate points rather than acknowledging the potential danger and the need for preparedness.
You seem to have listened to the head of the EHRC saying that new guidance is imminent and that access to single-sex services must be based on biological sex, but you don't seem to infer the significant implications from this. This might be due to an expectation that things will continue as before, despite the new evidence (Normalcy Bias). You use outdated information from before the judgment to interpret the EHRC's actions.
Claim 1:
You quote the EHRC stating, "It is false to suggest that we are looking to bar trans people from accessing spaces such as public toilets." It seems you don't realise that your statement is not a refutation of mine. I said that transgender people will have access to some services removed. This is inherently true if access to single-sex services is restricted, particularly where there is a broad removal of gender identity aligned service access. The EHRC will likely maintain that restricting access to facilities aligned with your birth sex is still "access," not a "bar," and that this move does not constitute a total bar on accessing public toilets (as gender-neutral or birth-sex aligned facilities would still exist). I'm not sure how this nuance is lost on you. By refuting the idea of a total "bar" when my claim was about "some" services being removed, you may be engaging in a form of misrepresenting my argument (Shifting the Goalposts, potentially Strawman depending on how you interpret my original "broad" claim).
Baroness Falkner runs the EHRC and stated on Radio 4, national publicly-funded radio, that services will differentiate access based on sex assigned at birth. I believe this is a link to the interview:
Falkner explicitly states that previous guidance is no longer valid and access to single-sex services like changing rooms and women's toilets must now be based on biological sex. This means services aligned with my acquired gender will effectively be removed from me – my right to use the women's changing room at my local gym, or any other service designated for women under the old interpretation. But sure, according to you, access isn't being removed.
Claim 2:
To argue that services will only be restricted where a high threshold of proportionality is reached, you provide a 2022 consultation document. Unfortunately, it is significantly out of date as it is precisely the type of document that is superseded by the new ruling and the subsequent guidance. Your statement about justification and proportionality, whilst technically correct as part of the overall legal framework, seems contrary to the stated response of the head of the EHRC who writes the guidance. She explicitly states that the guidance to which you refer will be changed in the manner I describe, based on the new legal reasoning. Your expectation that the previous guidelines based on proportionality will function as before seems to dismiss the impact of the recent judgment and the head of the EHRC's clear statements about the required changes, potentially reflecting a Normalcy Bias or an over-reliance on outdated information (Appeal to Authority based on an obsolete source).
Claim 3:
How on earth is stating that transgender people can use disabled toilets a refutation of my claim? Third spaces are not always available. Your refutation had little to do with my statement. My actual claim was that toilet usage is a choice between breaking the law and being unsafe. That is clearly a subjective statement based on fear and risk, and people can decide for themselves if it applies to them. It is certainly not a statement that needed 'myth busting', and even if it were, saying "you can still use the disabled one if they have one" is not an effective debunking of the difficult choice regarding safety or legal compliance that I presented.
Claim 4:
Your argument here misrepresents my claim. I did not say all police departments (though this is, in my speculative opinion, very likely to follow). My statement is correct; the fact that some police forces are doing it and some are not is immaterial to the truth of my claim that police are doing it. If you have any involvement with transport police, by using roads, rail, etc., then you are subject to this policy change. By presenting my claim as being about "ALL police departments," you create a simpler argument to refute than the one I actually made (Strawman).
Also, you say that there is no evidence of broad-scale media transgender targeting in the UK (you used 'coordinated', but I did not say that, so you were misrepresenting my claim - another potential Strawman). Yes, there absolutely is evidence. I am guessing if you are not aware of this, you must not be a UK resident, as it is everywhere. I would be stunned that anyone in the UK who is not anti-trans could genuinely claim this. Look at this report which details the patterns of negative and biased coverage:
https://transmediawatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Publishable-Trans-Media-Watch-Submission.pdf. As that report documents, major sections of the press have created a climate of ridicule, used demeaning language, and linked transgender people to criminality. Your dismissal of this as lacking evidence, despite the existence of such analyses, seems like a form of Dismissal of Evidence.
Looking at your location I see that you reside in Australia. It does very much feel like there are aspects of the UK that you are unfamiliar with or have an out-dated understanding of. There is a reason many people refer to the UK as 'TERF island'. [Citation needed :-p]
Claim 5:
The head of the EHRC has stated the intention to change guidance for all sex-segregated services based on sex assigned at birth. This principle, outlined by Baroness Falkner, will impact institutions such as prisons. I don't know how you can claim this is any form of fallacy. As Baroness Falkner confirmed in her interview, the new statutory guidance restricting sex services to those based on sex at birth "it'll be interpreted by courts as the law of the land" (5:19-5:21). Prisons have to comply with equality law, which has been 're-interpreted' by the courts, particularly in the recent judgment involving the Ministry of Justice itself. You are seemingly failing to understand the implications of such a judgment for MoJ policy. You are close to it, but it's like going to the restaurant and eating the menu, if you will – focusing on the description rather than the impending meal. Your reliance on the current MoJ policy [4] as static and definitive, without fully acknowledging its likely need to change in light of the new legal context and statutory guidance, could be seen as an Appeal to Authority based on an soon-to-be-obsolete policy, or another form of Normalcy Bias.
Claim 6:
The main basis for my claims came directly from the interview with the head of the EHRC, who made the following statements on the topic:
Overall Guidance: A new statutory code of practice is coming by the summer. This code will have legal standing ("be the law of the land") and will be interpreted by courts. (5:14-5:23)
Sport: Trans women (those born as men) cannot take part in women's sport. This is presented as a correct interpretation derived from the ruling. (3:02-3:03)
Single-Sex Services (Generally): Access to single-sex services must be based on biological sex. If a male person uses a women-only service, it becomes a mixed-sex space. (3:14-3:27)
Changing Rooms: Access to single-sex changing rooms must be based on biological sex. (3:10, 3:14-3:16)
Women's Toilets: If a service provider offers a single-sex women's toilet, trans people should not be using that single-sex facility. (4:29-4:41)
Health Service / Women-Only Wards: NHS guidance "has to change". The previous guidance accommodating trans people based on how they present or pronouns is "no longer the case". EHRC will be pressing the NHS to update their guidance to reflect the new legal reasoning, implying placement should be based on biological sex. (6:48-7:06)
Though not yet the final 'official' published document, these are incredibly clear statements from the head of the department. She states an official announcement is coming and outlines what it will say.
With regard to the court, my mention was an aside. I rang today, in my official capacity with the judiciary, to inquire as I did not wish to have any issues. That was what I was told. You will undoubtedly say that this does not make it official nationwide policy, and I would concur, it is not; however, we are talking about how people are likely to actually act and how this ruling is actually impacting people on the ground. This is a good example, just as the British Transport Police policy change is a good example. This is the context in which I am providing such instances: to indicate, where formal evidence may not yet be available due to the temporal proximity to the decision, the future appears to be becoming much more dangerous, and to advise people to be ready.
Conclusion
EHRC guidance is about to change, and based on the head of the EHRC's statements and recent policy shifts, you are likely to face restrictions in rights and services related to single-sex spaces in the UK. You are also likely to experience being challenged in bathrooms if you do not 'pass' 100%, or even if you do but 'look a bit masculine' in any way, if other countries with similar debates are anything to go by [citation needed]. I certainly know of increased reports of bathroom confrontations in cities surrounding my location, though this remains anecdotal, unlike the reported police policy changes. Perhaps you would rather wait until we have an academic study of the negative impacts of this change before advising preparedness, but I do not. I advise being prepared. Your dismissal of concerns as mere speculation, despite the evidence of clear intent and policy changes, feels like a Dismissal of Evidence.
