In March 2024, the previous Government called on members of the public to send in examples of “bad guidance”, that is “real-world examples of public bodies – and those that advise public or private bodies – that could be wrongly stating that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces according to their self-identified gender”.  For example, if an organisation like Edinburgh Rape Crisis had a policy which prevented women victim-survivors from being able to request support and counselling from female staff only (and considered that, in fact, women making such requests should “reframe their trauma”), that would be an example of (very) bad guidance.

After a push from the Shadow Minister for Equalities, the current government could prevaricate no more, and published their analysis of the results, here.

This is a response to it.  With apologies in advance (sorry, not sorry) for the sarcasm.  If you were to read this in your head with the voice of the wonderful, late Magdalen Burns, you may find it more satisfying.

Dear authors of the above,

Let me quote from the call for input “results” …

Overall, 404 individual pieces of guidance which fit the response criteria outlined on the call for input gov.uk page were submitted.

After reviewing these examples, we found that the majority seem to correctly interpret the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions.

We will eat our hats if this is true.  Show us the evidence, go on – we dare you.

In some cases, guidance reflected the organisation’s own policy to allow those with the ‘gender reassignment’ protected characteristic access to single-sex spaces that correspond with their self-identified gender, but did not incorrectly suggest that this is mandated by the Act.

First of all: “in some cases”.  You do realise, don’t you, that the call for input specifically asked for examples of self-ID, right?

Are you really saying that despite this request, the majority were not?  That most of the general public decided to send in examples that clearly followed the law and did not apply self-ID?  The general public, eh?!  Just too stupid to follow instructions?

We don’t believe you!

Had organisations suggested that their policy was mandated by the Act, however, this would have been a clear misinterpretation of the law.

Now we are getting somewhere!  Shall we also talk about the other self-ID policies, and whether or not any of these organisations considered their impact on women?  Shall we start with those who purport to provide single sex spaces?  How about women’s refuges, for example?  The clue is in the name.  Who is this likely to have a disproportionate impact on?  Yes we know: women.

Next, can we ask if the women’s refuge has gone on to consider whether the self-ID policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? 

You had one job here: you have not finished it.

Approximately 10% of the guidance submitted had text or examples that seem to have misinterpreted the Act’s single-sex spaces provisions.

See above.  This is getting embarrassing now, isn’t it? We don’t believe you!

This was in a number of nuanced ways, including not acknowledging that the Act allows providers to exclude those with the ‘gender reassignment’ protected characteristic where justified, or, acknowledging but misinterpreting these exceptions.

It is not nuanced to refuse to acknowledge that the gender reassignment exception exists so as to allow a women’s space to be women only – it is outrageous.

This suggests that there is confusion or a lack of awareness among some service providers and some of the public about the Act’s single-sex exceptions, and how to apply them in practice. Although guidance does exist, the results of this call for input suggest that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about these exceptions in a range of different contexts. The Minister for Women and Equalities has since written to the EHRC as the independent regulator to share the findings from the call for input and to ask them to review the examples of guidance that seem to have misinterpreted the Equality Act. 

Indeed. Perhaps you will forgive us for suggesting that those responsible for releasing this response may well be amongst those who are confused or lack awareness about the Act’s single-sex exceptions, and how to apply them in practice? 

Also, if you have only sent the worst ones to the EHRC, what have you done with the rest? Back of the drawer?

Moving forward, we will explore the best ways in which we can give providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how to lawfully apply the exceptions, including through guidance. We want to ensure that everyone is able to receive the support they need and feel safe when accessing a variety of different services. 

By everyone, I think we all know who you really mean.  Men, right?  You can’t mean women if you have effectively just given reassurance to providers that it is fine to have self-ID policies, provided they don’t say that the Equality Act mandates it, can you? 

You have not mentioned the possibility of indirect discrimination against women nor the public sector equality duty.  

Moving forward, how can we support you to understand that self-ID is not lawfully applying the exceptions nor enabling everyone to receive the support they need to feel safe when accessing a variety of different services?

Hugs and kisses,

Women