[–] Flick 1 points (+1|-0)

Someone a lot more legally minded than I am has said that the judgement today is actually a good thing: the review was refused because it’s not needed, the law is completely clear and EHRC needs to follow it by producing guidance saying that single sex exemptions are permitted even with a GRC.

God I hope you're right. But following various threads on Mumsnet they seem to think it means that it can be easily over-turned by a transwoman asking for admittance to a space, or just admitting themselves, and the onus would be on women to prove that was a serious issue. either way - it does not seem to be any clearer for the person managing a John Lewis shop say, who has to decide how to mange their changing rooms and loos.

A letter or email to your MP can't hurt!

[–] Flick 1 points (+1|-0)

I’ve just added her explanation in a comment. It seems logical, so I do hope she’s right!

[–] ChristinaXYZ [OP] 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

Is this on Mumsnet - the thread is unwieldy - because it might settle a few nerves? Would your friend mind if I reposted? (I am assuming she is a lawyer).

[–] Flick 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Quoting (with permission) Jackie Hollyoake:

Mr Justice Henshaw refused an application for Judicial Review because, as far as he was concerned, it was unnecessary.

The existing law [that is the interaction of the GRA 2004 and the EA 2010] provides for single sex spaces and that transpeople, regardless of the protective characteristic of 'gender reassignment' or of the possession of a 'GRC', have "no automatic entitlement of access [to single sex spaces or services reserved to the female sex] on the basis of 'acquired gender' ".

AEA won its case on those terms and needs no longer to expend any funds on any further legal action. [Although, AEA may choose to pursue to ensure clarification, for which I will support.]

This Judge has stated that the 'bar' for a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, in this circumstance, is the privacy of the female sex and the provision of decency for the female sex.

So, any male or transperson who violates the privacy boundary of any member of the female sex in any circumstance is declared by existing law to be indecent.

The use of the word 'decency' is no accident given the sexual offence of 'indecent exposure'.

Effectively, this Judge seems to be saying that, given the terms of the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, males of any description [with or without a GRC], should stay out of women's spaces and services or risk criminal proceedings for indecency at the very least.

EHRC needs to make it plain, to service providers and to service users, that the statement from the Judge explains in law that there is no "automatic entitlement" to the access of any female service / spaces bestowed by the GR protected characteristic or via a GRC; and that such a violation of access amounts to an invasion of privacy of and behaviour that is indecent toward the sex class that is female.