We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition - EHRC

“The central issue raised by this appeal is how ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are defined in the Equality Act 2010.

“On that point, our position is that when Parliament passed the Equality Act, it intended those who have acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to be treated as their certified sex. So a trans woman with a GRC is legally recognised as a woman under the Equality Act, and a trans man with a GRC is legally recognised as a man.

“We look forward to the Supreme Court’s judgment providing an authoritative interpretation of the existing law in this area.”

“We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition.

“It creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people. These difficulties include the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single sex spaces, and in the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations. We think clarity is important to everybody affected by these issues properly understanding and exercising their rights.

“It is unlikely that Parliament appreciated these consequences when it passed the Equality Act, and they have become more serious with societal change since that time.

“As the equality regulator, we deem this to be a wholly unsatisfactory situation, which Parliament should address with urgency.

“In April last year we provided advice on clarifying the definition of ‘sex’, in response to a request from the then Minister for Women and Equalities. It is our view that the arguments at the heart of this case once again highlight the importance of Parliament giving careful consideration to amending the Equality Act 2010 and the current balance of rights under the Act.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-intervention-women-scotland-supreme-court-appeal

(This is in relation to forthcoming FWS court case, but thought as it is a statment from the EHRC, those not on that thread would be interested to read this. But always find it strange that all these people making all these statements never refer to why the SSE were written, ie because they did intend those with a GRC to be taken as being "legally" the other sex.)

Well personally I think it is a total insult that they wrote something that discriminated against the actual class meant to be protected as one of the EA characterists for a tiny minority.

The fact that the Labour Government at the time intended that a GRC gave someone the right to be legally the other sex, at the expense of the actual sex class.

You would have thought, well its only going to be a tiny minority with a GRC, so maybe there will be a few occassion when they can be treated as legally being that sex. ie the exemptions should be written to cover those very few instances when a GRC = biology.

Not imply that generally 50% if not more of the country, should only (when proportionate) be taken to be actual women.

Not forgetting that the real issue isn't what is written in any act, but the huge influence that TRAs, have effectively won the social arguement that TWAW.

That genie is out of the bottle, and even if the law is changed, it wont stop Stonewall, the Guardian, the BBC, schools, women's groups saying with or without a GRC they will accept someon claiming to be (through identification) the opposite sex.