On Friday 13th March I spoke on a panel about the Equality Act with Susan Smith of For Women Scotland and Akua Reindorf KC, at the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference in York. I talked in simple language about the purpose of the Equality Act and clarity and comprehensiveness of the For Women Scotland judgment.
I started by reading out paragraph 209 of the judgment:
“In short, the core provisions to which we have referred, which refer to sex, man or woman, are not capable of being read fairly and consistently with [changing sex ‘for all purposes’] without defeating their purpose and meaning. The definition of these terms… is not capable of being interpreted on the basis of certificated sex. Rather, sex has its biological meaning throughout this legislation: ‘woman’ always and only means a biological female of any age.... It follows that a biological male of any age cannot fall within this definition; and ‘woman’ does not mean or sometimes mean or include a male of any age who holds a GRC or exclude a female of any age who holds a GRC. To reach any other conclusion would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head and diminish the protection available to individuals and groups against discrimination on the grounds of sex.”
It couldn’t be clearer.
Nearly a year ago, when we all came out of the Supreme Court, we thought that perhaps we could all shut up shop and go home. Organisations that care about the inclusion of women and girls in public life would recognise that defeating the purpose and meaning of the law that protects women and girls against sex discrimination is bad. It’s bad not only because it harms women and girls directly, but also because it corrodes institutions when they systematically say one thing while doing another.
We thought the people who had allowed this harmful confusion about the law to take hold in their institutions would take this opportunity to put things right. Some might even say sorry. But they didn’t. Many hid behind the dog-eared excuse of “waiting for guidance”, and some started actively looking for loopholes.
Last week I wrote to the general counsel of Marks & Spencer’s (you can read more in our blog post: see below). He had written to me telling me that I was mistaken in thinking M&S allows men into women’s changing rooms. He said it simply doesn’t have women’s changing rooms at all. I wrote back with evidence that M&S advertises on its own website store-by-store that it has “fitting rooms(men)” and “fitting rooms(women)”.
We also heard about the King’s Trust (formerly the Prince’s Trust), a charity founded by King Charles in 1976, advertising a boxing and fitness programme for disadvantaged 16–25 year old girls and young women in Bristol, but allowing boys and young men who identify as female to take part. Shockingly, it decided to scrap the programme rather than risk having to tell young men who get a kick out of hitting women and girls that they aren’t welcome.
We’ve heard how the Women’s Institute group in Kentish Town has been refused a booking by the venue it used to meet in now that the charity is explicitly for women only. The venue that turned it away is another charity set up for women. And we’ve heard from women attending a women’s group run by a mental-health charity that they have been told the group is now not female only but for “anyone who wants to discuss women’s mental health”.
We have met the CEO of the Charity Commission and told him all this, and now we will write and tell him again. It is so dispiriting that organisations whose purpose is to help people would rather remove opportunities for women to be safe, to keep fit or to improve their mental health than stand up to those who regard these objectives as secondary to making sure trans-identifying individuals always get what they want.
In more cheering news, we heard at the end of last week that the Court of Appeal agrees that our case on the Hampstead Ponds is arguable. We are seeking to demonstrate that organisations exposing women to discrimination and harassment cannot use these kinds of wordgames as a defence. Thank you to everyone who has donated to our ponds case crowdfunder so far. Hopefully we will be back in court soon.
On Saturday 11th April the grassroots group behind the #199DaysLater protest is organising a series of events across the country to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court judgment, and to protest against inaction. There will be events in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Sunderland, Plymouth and Belfast and in four international locations. We will be there. We hope you will join us!
Maya Forstater
Women’s pool goes to High Court
Man appeals against exclusion from women’s tournament
This week Fiona and Helen discuss the case of Harriet Haynes, a trans-identifying male pool player who took the England Blackball Pool Federation to court last year because it restricted entry to women’s events to women. After losing in the county court, he has been granted permission to appeal. If the original verdict is upheld, that will set a strong precedent protecting all women’s sporting competitions against legal challenge from aggrieved trans-identifying men.
Read our case briefing.
M&S warned over mixed-sex changing rooms
Sex Matters has written to warn Marks & Spencer that its policy of advertising male and female changing rooms but then operating them as mixed-sex facilities could amount to indirect discrimination and harassment towards women.
Hampstead Ponds: judicial review going ahead
We have won our appeal against the High Court’s refusal in February to allow us challenge the City of London’s gender-identity policy at the bathing ponds on Hampstead Heath.
Crowdfund to keep men out of the Ladies’ Pond
We’ve increased our target to enable the next stage in this case! Thank you to everyone who donated to get us this far.
In the news
The news that Sex Matters won our appeal to proceed with our legal challenge against the gender self-ID policy at Hampstead ponds was covered by BBC News, Sanchez Manning for The Times (print only), Aidan Radnedge for Mail Online, Jess Glass for Ham & High, and Ben Lynch for My London. Maya said that the government’s failure to publish updated guidance following last year’s Supreme Court judgment has provided an excuse to continue flouting the law on single-sex provision.
Daniel Martin for The Telegraph covered Sex Matters’ letter to Marks & Spencer (M&S) warning that its policy of mixed-sex changing rooms could amount to indirect discrimination and harassment towards women. Maya said that it is astonishing that M&S has decided that pretending no-one needs single-sex changing rooms is better than possibly having to say No to a man pretending to be a woman.
Also for The Telegraph, Ben Rumsby broke the news that trans-identifying male pool player Harriet Haynes has been granted permission to appeal against a judgment that he can lawfully be excluded from women’s competitions. Fiona said that men don’t belong in anything that is specifically for women, but it seems some are determined not to hear that clear, simple message.
Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail broke the news that the King’s Trust (formerly Prince’s Trust) decided to cancel a boxing course for disadvantaged girls and young women instead of preventing trans-identifying boys and young men from participating. Helen said that it’s outrageous that a registered charity would rather remove opportunities for young women than tell men who identify as women that their identity doesn’t give them the right to punch women.
If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.
Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.
Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.
Men have been battling institutionalized man-hating feminism for the last 50 years,