The law has never told you which door to use

The EHRC’s Code of Practice for services came into force this week. Single-sex services are now offered on the basis of biological sex, and providers may ask a person to confirm theirs. 167 MPs signed Nadia Whittome’s motion to disapprove it, the majority of Liberal Democrat MPs among them. It was never debated.

One fact has been almost entirely absent from the argument, and it changes the shape of it.

The law has regulated lavatories and changing rooms since the 1890s. Every one of those provisions regulates what must be provided. Not one regulates who may walk in. There is no offence of using the wrong lavatory and there never has been. A sign saying Ladies is a notice, not an instrument.

So this is not a clarification of a rule we have always had. It is the first attempt to attach a legal fact to an individual at a doorway, and it arrives with no way of establishing that fact. A passport shows recorded sex. So does a driving licence. Nothing in ordinary circulation shows what the Code has just made decisive, which leaves a provider taking the person’s word, defeating the point of a rule about birth sex, or judging by appearance, deciding something else entirely and falling hardest on women who do not look the part.

None of that is the Code’s fault, and none of it can be fixed by rewriting the Code. The Supreme Court read the Equality Act as it stands. The EHRC wrote guidance on what the Court said. Both did their jobs. What is missing is a Parliament willing to say what it actually wants, which it has not done on this since 2004 and has never done for non-binary people at all. Every attempt to avoid that conversation has produced a worse version of it: first a court, then a regulator, now a commencement date. Only an Act ends it.

A Just Society has published one in skeleton form.

  • Recognition by statutory declaration.
  • A closed list of exceptions to replace section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act.
  • A privacy duty.
  • Non-binary recognition.

The argument is set out in full here, on the A Just Society Substack, including a link to the skeleton bill, its exceptions schedule and the reasoning behind each clause.

Both are published to be argued with. I would rather have the argument than not.

 

* Tanya Park is a Lib Dem County, Borough & Town councillor in Eastleigh, Hampshire and writes at A Just Society, a liberal policy project making the case for radical progressive policies grounded in liberal principles.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

This post has pre moderation enabled, please be patient whilst waiting for it to be manually reviewed. Liberal Democrat Voice is made up of volunteers who keep the site running in their free time.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • cim
    Agreed with a lot of the above, "compulsory voting" is just a way to mask the symptom that there's not much in our current democracy that gets people excited to...
  • SteveTrevethan
    Thanks to all for a most interesting and relevant article and set of comments! From the information and possibilities therein contained, is it the case that ...
  • David Evans
    Let's be honest here. The whole thing is a political carve up, by an instinctively centralising and authoritarian Labour party, emboldened by a huge parliament...
  • George Thomas
    Perhaps my most illiberal "opinion" is that automatic freedom of movement for immigrants is possibly a bad thing*. I remember speaking with a recent refugee who...
  • Chloe
    'underlying emotions are fear, resentment and inadequacy relating to their own lives' Are you saying the residents of Crowborough or Bicester who've protested ...