Hoc Women and Equalities Select Committee want more time for EHRC consultation

Just here to add to the chorus of WTFs at 'overly literal'.

It's the law. The literal words on the literal page are literally the literal fucking law. That's literally the point!

There is a GI activist on another thread currently trying to argue that words have varied meanings and interpretations of them can be varied,

And on another thread one is arguing that two people having two totally different things is them sharing something.

There is a GI activist on another thread currently trying to argue that words have varied meanings and interpretations of them can be varied, and that somehow this definitely means that the wording of the judgment doesn't equal men not being biological women, and single sex spaces for women doesn't equal men not being able to use them.

This is a belief system that focuses on celebrating and living within alternative personal realities and feelings creating reality, not facts. It would be possible to live with this in society if there were clear, firm boundaries to protect others, but Labour et al appear to be busy fucking that up as fast as possible.

I watched the SC hearing and the judgement, and i read the 88 page ruling.

It really does not matter one bit what the handmaidens committee write to the EHRC.

It does not matter one bit about the hue and cry of the TRA’s, and all the silly arguments they are coming up with.

(you know we might be fearful of lesbians in our spaces, how it going to be policed, what if they pass bla bla bla.)

What matters is what the law says. And it is clear as fucking day and night.

Men, (and women) with a certificate remain as a matter of fact the sex that they were born with, they just cannot be discriminated against because of their appearance.

if the door says woman then man cannot go in it.

(that reinstates the offences of vouyerism and indecent exposure)

if the group says lesbian then men cannot go in to it.

If you have no female facilities in a pub or a leisure centre then that is sex discrimination.

The ruling even states, there might be occasion where a woman who, goes out of her way to look like a man may be lawfully excluded from female spaces. If it would cause alarm and distress. (I have no boo hoos about that)

labour have no appetite to change the law by legislation, and IMHO the general public are you know, WTF.

Its going to take time to snap back to normal thinking, and i have not put my purse away just yet.

but it is GAME OVER.

Dont forget this version of the WEC is dominated by Labour trans allies.

Just as the WEC that was also TRA dominated set in motion as its premier concern was to bring in self id. The very motion that got so many women aware of what was happening and through FWR (and others) submitted responses to that.

It isn't at all surprising that they would make trans people their priority.

And nice as it is that the Tories gave their one seat to Rosie Duffield its not as though she as a lone voice can change anything.

But that is the reality of the Labour Government in 2025. They have not changed their mentality which actually created the problem by say the GRA had priority over the protected characteristic of sex.

Labour must be so angry that their devious attempt to try and get TW being the same a biological women legal, has been overturned by Judges who deal with reality not some queer theory about sex and gender.

Dont forget the forthcoming Parliament discussion in response to a petition asking for self ID. Wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour doesn't take this up just because they are so opposed to what the Supreme Court has done.

And I suspect in writing to the EHRC they are using the social campaing Stonewall version of trans. ie anybody who says they are, not the legal definition of trans being a GRC. They are so pumped up with their pious self righteousness that what they have written propably isn't even legal as they have failed (probalby deliberately) to define what they mean by trans.

If anyone thought is worthwhile it might do they a bit of good to get letters or email asking what they are talking about, and how disappointing the a committee whose primary focus in women has not concentrated on how the Court ruling could improve women's lives and women's safety.

I know what you mean - I suspect their point was supposed to be “and look what happens when people follow your terrible guidance”, whereas the reaction of most sensible people will be “yes, what happens is the law is followed and women are protected”.

How about looking at the women who self ID as men who may be strip-searched by male officers if gender identity is the key element

Or is the Committee proposing that mens self ID is to result in a woman doing the search but a women self ID is to be ignored?

Sigh.... are they thinking that through both sexes?

Possibly less odd if one comes at it from the point of view of wanting to insist on validation, which of course one should not.

I agree that 'not shafting people with disabilities that mean they need the disabled toilet' would be a much more equality-focused angle. As would 'recognising that it is good there is clarity about not continuing to shaft actual women, even if there is more thought needed about how to deal with people with interesting identities as a result of everyone having fucked this up over the past N years'.

Very much this 👆

We’re going to end up with a Trump moment. I don’t believe that the general public is that fussed about the trans experience, and it’s really not just us on Mumsnet who are fed up to the back teeth with it all.
How long until the next general election?
DH and I have always voted Labour. He voted Tory at the last one, as someone involved w education, that wasn’t an option for me. Well, not last time anyway.

I agree. I think that is a very disappointing example because it is so revealing of their mindset.

If they were genuinely concerned with the rights of all people, as they state, then why does their solitary specific example not consider the interplay of women's rights and trans rights in that scenario?

They haven't learned anything. I don't see any recognition in that letter of the importance of protecting women's rights and lesbians' rights, which was critical to the judgment.

I would imagine strip-searching was chosen because the BTP were one of the first orgs to come out with a definitive policy after the EHRC’s interim guidance was issued, so it’s one of the few areas where someone has announced a policy based on it as opposed to having said “I think we’re just going to wait a while..”.

I’m not saying they don’t feel a certain way about it behind the scenes, just that the letter was far more tempered than the article made it seem.

I know it’s already been picked out, but “overly literal?

How on earth can you be overly literal?

Meanings of the word literal from the online Oxford dictionary

1. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration

2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text

3. (of a person or performance) lacking imagination; prosaic

4. of, in, or expressed by a letter or the letters of the alphabet

It can’t be 4) so do we think they want the EHRC to exaggerate (maybe how many privileges they can wedge in for men at women’s expense?

Do they want it not to represent the exact words of the original text too closely?

Or do they want the writer to be imaginative, and imagine rights for people that don’t exist?

Sometimes, I think people are thick as mince. I really wish they were not in charge of important things,

Yes - activists urging us that biological sex shouldn’t be taken literally was what got us into this mess in the first place!

If they want to queer the SC judgment and argue that the only equitable option is to subvert the authority of the Supreme Court and interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what was actually said, then good luck to them, I guess.

They’re complaining about an ‘overly literal’ interpretation of the law?!! Eh???

Mind blowing.

If we’re in some kind of post-legal world now, can I speed with impunity and tell the coppers who pull me over they don’t need to be ‘overly literal’ in their interpretation of the speed limit?

Wait until the women's discrimination cases start coming in... There really is a possibility of a flood gate situation on this if organisations aren't very careful at this point.

This.

If they have a problem with the guidance then they should be referring it back to the HoC to reconsider the current legislation. In other words it's their responsibility to fix any problem they perceive there is and to stop trying to pass the buck so they don't look back and it doesn't affect their reelection prospects.

Ultimately the EHRC is likely to say the same thing - because they can't change their minds, their position is the law - so then what?

They are doing the same as the numpties who tried to undermine the SC. Except they are now trying to undermine the EHRC. Thats not cool.

If they don't like the law, they are MPs. MPs are responsible for writing the law or rewriting the law. It's pretty simple. If they think this is a priority then they can push the government to push this up the agenda and fast track a bill to amend the Equality Act.

This won't happen. We know why it won't happen.

They are all trying to pretend and hope this will go away so they don't have to deal with it. And this has been politics for the last 20years or so - a process of kicking the can down the road long enough so they don't have to deal with it. The problem is you can only do that for so long before you hit a crunch point with reality where the problem becomes a crisis which has to be dealt with and is much bigger than the original problem.

This goes back another name right now. It's name is Reform.

I thought the judgement was fairly comprehensive. Not much room for a creative rather than a literal reading surely.

It's unfortunate that so many people followed Stonewall law and are left in the shit (new schools with mixed sex toilets etc)

And it's unfortunate that TM & TW may only be able to use unisex toilets / changing rooms etc but play silly games win silly prizes etc

Overly literal.....

ffs, what else do they think that judgment could possibly mean?!

Just to reassure people, the actual letter doesn’t have the same bias as the Guardian article, and will hopefully elicit some much needed clarity on timing and what the EHRC is advising on the meantime for all of us.

Personally, I would welcome a longer consultation period to give more women the chance to give their views and to express the many different ways the implementation of the EA affects us.

If the period is extended, then transactivists might make more noise with the same tired talking points, but we will have more time to organise and to articulate all the ways that this issue affects us, as we have the truth on our side and sex is important to us for a far greater number of reasons.

They could flip it around and say if you don’t want to be strip searched by a man, don’t commit any crimes women.

It follows concern from transgender activists and a number of MPs that Lady Falkner and her organisation have thus far taken an overly literal approach to last month’s supreme court decision, which ruled that “woman” in the Equality Act refers only to a biological woman.

Presumably she should take it all with a pinch of salt and continue with the Stonewall interpretation.

I don't want anyone to feel they've been assaulted, but seriously - where was this committee when the police were making it clear they'd insist women had to be strip searched by men who had interesting identities? What did they care at that point?

I am sickened by the absolute abandonment of women by the government. So long as trans identified men are happy, apparently nothing else matters.