I dunno, 'should' still isn't 'have to', that bit reads like a guideline more than a requirement
Either way the associations that aren't run by TERFs can still just call themselves something other than 'women-only' of 'lesbian-only' and then continue to allow trans women in but not men
(I believe in practice, trans-inclusive but still strictly 'women-only' groups are rare, partly because it's hard to police. I think they usually just say "this group isn't intended for men" and leave it to that)
The implication is that if a lesbian association allows trans lesbians, a cis lesbian would be able to successfully sue them for not restricting it to only "biological women"
‘Should’ as far as I’m aware is not a demand but a suggestion, and I’m pretty sure there have been multiple cases in court like this where the should was interpreted as a suggestion
the "can" refers to being able to limit an association to men or women or to gay men or lesbians, but the "should not" part means it can't be limited to e.g. both cis women and trans women, it has to either allow men or include only cis women
Robin Moira White, a barrister, basically says don’t follow this guidance.
“This update from the EHRC would appear to be […] a potential breach of Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR. [It] seems to me a good reason for not following this guidance, given the horrific effect on trans lives.”
I don’t read that as banning trans-inclusive single-sex groups. It’s just saying it can be trans-exclusive under the interpretation of the act, not that it has to be.
Still, sickening.
There is literally no way to have a trans inclusive single sex group under the new law since the definition of women under the law is now "cis women" and vice versa.
So I think it does mean it's optional legally, but I also believe TERFs are going to bend it to push further and clearly there's an anti trans bias in the UK legal system.
Comments
"A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men)".
Either way the associations that aren't run by TERFs can still just call themselves something other than 'women-only' of 'lesbian-only' and then continue to allow trans women in but not men
It doesn’t say how that can be determined.
“This update from the EHRC would appear to be […] a potential breach of Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR. [It] seems to me a good reason for not following this guidance, given the horrific effect on trans lives.”
Still, sickening.
So I think it does mean it's optional legally, but I also believe TERFs are going to bend it to push further and clearly there's an anti trans bias in the UK legal system.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jei25c3jqagiopygeqxo5qsg/post/3lnphjh4uws2l