Making sense of the EHRC judicial review

[ChristinaXYZ]

Great attempt at explanation from Sarah Phillimore with additional commentary by someone who was there

I take to heart the following:

"The EHRC thus argued that their position had always been clear; a TP can be excluded from a service where that is justified, and the EHRC had taken steps to bring that to the attention of service-providers whose guidance wrongly suggests that a TP must ALWAYS be permitted to use the SSS of their acquired gender irrespective of the needs of, or detriment to, others."

sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-the-ehrc-judicial

👍

That is good.

So perhaps the EHRC needs a kick up the arse to take more effective steps re ensuring the NHS et al know this?

Clearly - the

Tbh I think it was worth Ann Sinnott taking the action to get that clear statement.
I’m glad I was one of those thousands of women who contributed and it certainly won’t discourage me from contributing to further fund raisers.

Thank-you Ann if you’re reading this

So what are they going to do to those who ignore this and do what they like/employ people they want?

The TRAs are clapping their hands with glee as they think it's a victory and women have no rights to single sex spaces at all. They think it's basically self-ID a-go-go.

We need far more clarity on the law. And #RepealtheGRA

The TRAs are clapping their hands with glee as they think it's a victory and women have no rights to single sex spaces at all. They think it's basically self-ID a-go-go

And as usual, they have misunderstood it. Hardly surprising really.

There's a letter re the EHRC in the Sunday times today - titled 'STONEWALL DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/letters-to-the-editor-politicians-pay-is-piffling-they-need-a-rise-0qchfm2ds?shareToken=7524bf6e482caadf8e78f9a09babd50b

There is also a very short article about the letter in the news section but my share thingie doesn't work anymore, not sure why:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/employers-discipline-staff-who-question-trans-rights-2vmjhmfq7

Telegraph
Transgender guidelines for girls schools quietly scrapped by the equalities watchdog
The Equality and Human Rights Commission was set to publish help in the debate between biological sex and gender under the 2010 Equality Act

Ewan Somerville
9 May 2021
(extract)
National transgender guidelines that would have forced girls schools to admit trans pupils have been quietly scrapped by the equalities watchdog, amid fierce opposition from feminists, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was set to publish guidelines to help schools navigate the fraught debate between biological sex and gender under the 2010 Equality Act.

Teachers across England, Scotland and Wales were expecting them soon, following three years of delays stretching back to 2018.

A draft copy of the guidelines, first reported by this newspaper, said excluding male pupils from girls schools with an admissions policy based on sex at birth would be “indirectly discriminatory”.

A girl who formally transitions to boy must be allowed to stay at the girls school, or this would be "direct gender reassignment discrimination", it added.

Schools were told to install gender-neutral lavatories and changing rooms where possible, including on residential trips, or let pupils use the facility that fits their gender identity.

In PE, a boy who feels they are a girl could not be excluded from girls sports lessons. Teachers were warned refusal to call trans pupils by their new names and pronouns could break the law.

Parents and academics said the plans showed “what a mess we create when we conflate sex and gender” and eroded biological sex. Now, they have been ditched.

An EHRC spokesman said: "Considering the lack of definitive case law, it has become clear that publishing our guidance may not provide schools with the clarity we hoped.

"This would not be in the best interests of young people, including trans pupils. We have therefore decided not to publish our guidance." (continues)

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/09/transgender-guidelines-girls-schools-quietly-scrapped-equalities/

That’s helped clarify a couple of questions I had, thanks for posting.

So frustrating that the debate was lured down the obvious cul de sac and not retrieved.

[quote Igneococcus]There is also a very short article about the letter in the news section but my share thingie doesn't work anymore, not sure why:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/employers-discipline-staff-who-question-trans-rights-2vmjhmfq7[/quote]
Here you go

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/employers-discipline-staff-who-question-trans-rights-2vmjhmfq7?shareToken=c48634cab1f44dace2a520a624173e6f

I thought the explanation from Sarah Phillimore and others mentioned in her piece really helped me after I struggled through the live tweeting of Ann Sinnotts case the other day. I would recommend this to any other beginners trying to get up to speed in order to be part of the fight back.

Thanks Errol, it has quite a busy comments section.

There is also this article in the Scottish section about guidance to schools breaching law:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/guidance-to-schools-on-transgender-acknowledgement-breaches-law-r39whlmk7

It wasn’t all that long ago that LGBT Youth Scotland chief executive was sentenced to life imprisonment and there was a huge stink.

Why have such groups not been out in the position of extreme scrutiny - they are communicating directly with our kids?

Any voice of concern and you are told that you are ‘old’ or out of touch, that the world is changing or you are just a hideous bigot and ‘phobic.

It wasn’t all that long ago that LGBT Youth Scotland chief executive was sentenced to life imprisonment and there was a huge stink.

Guardian 2009 on James Rennie's conviction:

'Two ringleaders of child abuse network jailed for life

Men led largest paedophile ring in Scotland, responsible for 125,000 images and videos and abuse of friends' children'
(extract)
"The judge added: "You were in my view on the evidence a central player in this dreadful crime. You were one of the principal movers in the conspiracy."

Rennie, 38, had betrayed the parents of his victim, a three-month-old baby known as Child F who was also his godson, to a "truly appalling" extent by assaulting him over a four-year period.

Bannatyne likened Rennie, then co-ordinator of the gay rights agency LGBT Youth Scotland and a former teacher, to a spider "weaving an electronic web" to set up and then control their conspiracy." (cont.)

The board of LGBT Youth Scotland said today there was no evidence any of the youths assisted by their agency were assaulted by Rennie, and "whole-heartedly welcomed" the convictions. It added: "LGBT Youth Scotland abhors any abuse of children and young people's rights. It is with a particular sense of betrayal of our organisational purpose and values that we learned of the crimes committed by James Rennie, and we are utterly appalled by his abuse and exploitation of children."
www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/29/courts-abuse-paedophile-ring-scotland

I am still confused about what this case means, is there somewhere I can read the actual judgement?

thanks, that's helpful

This in particular is something to bear in mind when the likes of Maria Miller do 'nothing to see here' handwaving

It is useful that the EHRC clearly states it does acknowledge that what is required here is a balance of rights - many have been stating confidently for many years that there is no possible clash of rights between TP [trans people] and women.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission understands that there is a conflict between the rights of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and women, so let's all stop pretending that there isn't please

Thanks for sharing this article. Basically the case 'failed' because it wasn't needed (as the broad position that AEA posited was agreed by the EHRC?) And it was out of time for challenge.

Hugely helpful overview from Sarah P - thanks for posting.

Helps me feel less angry. The inadequacy of the law itself is the problem here rather than the inadequacy of EHRC's 'advice' about it.

You are right Bernard - at least the conflict of rights is now explicit. I might go and explain that to our Labour Government in Wales (not that they are inclined to listen to women).

[quote ErrolTheDragon]There's a letter re the EHRC in the Sunday times today - titled 'STONEWALL DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW"

[[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/letters-to-the-editor-politicians-pay-is-piffling-they-need-a-rise-0qchfm2ds?shareToken=7524bf6e482caadf8e78f9a09babd50b]][/quote]
There's a longer version of that letter here, pointing out the problems with Stonewall's relationship with organisations like the EHRC.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/ehrc-letter/

Thanks for sharing this article. Basically the case 'failed' because it wasn't needed (as the broad position that AEA posited was agreed by the EHRC?) And it was out of time for challenge.

I'm not sure that's quite right. I followed the live tweeting and I got the same feeling that the person who added their thoughts to the blog got (but I wasn't watching live). AEA made it sound like they were arguing that it would never (or almost never) be lawful to admit a trans woman to a female only service. That seemed to be their aim. EHRC and judge didn't agree at all.

They also claimed that whether a person has a grc makes a difference in decisions about admitting them to a SSS. The EHRC and judge disagreed with that too. So I'm a bit confused why quite a few gc feminist response to this case is 'this shows we need to repeal gra'. If anything it shows there is no interaction between GRA and EA exemptions.

I think the judge indicated that 'in exceptional circumstances' in the COP was possibly unlawful. That might be something to persue but it sounds like we will need cases of specific women being disadvantaged.