WEC to question the EHRC Chair and Chief Executive 11 June 2025 2:20pm

Having read through the transcript, there are a few things that I found interesting. The primary objections that have been floated so far re the SC ruling are that:

1. the ruling is in violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights act.
2. previous law is not superseded by the Equality Act, e.g. regulations covering bathrooms for employers, and because of that a different meaning of 'sex' should be used in those laws than that of the EA..
3. one way 'around' the SC ruling is to make single sexed services and spaces unisex.
4. the consultation period for interim update was too short.
5. there was inappropriate consultation during the SC case, i.e. trans people were excluded.
6. the 'guidance' was not clear.

With respect to #1 (Article 8) Falkner replied:

"We don't think Article 8 rights apply, neither did the supreme court, and neither has previous legal advice that we've taken on that area."

#2 (law outside the EA) Was not raised by anyone, interestingly, which i think shows the lack of preparation and understanding by the committee, especially the TRA faction. But Falkner did indirectly speak to it ( i.e. the EA is an evolution of sex-rights-based law and it would be incoherent to apply different definitions of sex to different laws):

"As I tried to explain to miss Taylor, that the Equality Act in fact, if you want to go back to the Sex Discrimination of 1975, the Equality Act building on that has always had exemptions for separate and single sex spaces."

#3 (make everything unisex) was not addressed by anyone on the committee or Falkner.

Falkner addressed the complaint about length of time for consultation without it being raised, #4, noting that it was the committee itself that suggested the time period:

"You know, we've just had and the committee wrote to us telling us that perhaps six weeks was the appropriate length of time."

#5 was not raised directly either, but Falkner did make the following statement which I think points out the fact that many of the questions Falkner was fielding would be put in a different way if placed before the people really responsible for the ruling. 😏

"I think we have a slight danger here of shooting the messenger. So the judgment was one delivered by the Supreme Court and I suggest you call five justices in front of you and challenge them on why they arrived at the decisions."

She also emphasized the fact that in all consultations the EHRC is making, they were actively seeking input from the trans community, including activists.

#6, the word 'guidance' i think is the most striking. It's clear that many of the people asking questions did not understand what the interim update was, nor did they understand that it was not 'guidance', which has a very specific definition with respect to the EHRC. The interim update served a very narrow and limited purpose. This misunderstanding was somewhat shocking, given that much of the questioning was accusatory, even implying that Falkner wasn't doing her job. Yet, they demonstrated that they didn't have a basic grasp of what that job was, at least in the context of the proceedings. And that their complaints fell outside of the scope of the interim update.

Overall I think Falkner comes out quite a bit better in the transcript than the audio. She's clear, and articulate, with an excellent grasp and presentation of the material. She expertly dealt with hostile questions with comprehensive answers.

Also, I'm inclined to be a bit more generous to the MPs adopting the TRA stance than many here. It's clear that they've received a lot of correspondence (and other interaction with constituents), and were presenting a synthesis of that to Falkner. (including channeling the outrage 😬) They could have done a better job of familiarizing themselves with the subject, but ultimately their job as elected representatives is to hold government to account. The gave Falkner a forum to address those concerns and IMO she did so extremely ably.

I've just checked, because I hardly recognised any of the committee members, and they're very heavily made up of 2024 intake MPs.

I have a sense that, if the sensible Labour ministers want to drag the party back to reality, they'll have a fight with ministerial colleagues but an even bigger fight with a heavily Stonewalled intake of backbenchers.

So much sympathy for the ‘plight’ of trans people from this committee.

I detected zero sympathy for Baroness Faulkner’s account of p*ss protests and rampant abuse on her, her staff and their families from the TRAs. Not a whisper.

Quite.

Csn we apply to give an approval rating to the WESC - especially the Chair? I’m putting nil points.

They are definitely using tra reasonings. The TW of thirty years who passes perfectly and shouldnt have to out themselves always makes an appearance. As do the 'intersex' people.

Huge coincidence if they came up with these gotchas independently.

So this appears to nail it. I’m part way through the session and I don’t think the committee has mentioned the word woman once.

Many committee members claim they still don’t understand the SC judgement. That will be down to a clear lack of cognitive function and not the clarity of anything. They are obviously not fit for purpose.

I also suspect that they've been bombarded with emails from TRAs and, being that way inclined already, have taken up the TRA talking points about the judgment rather than, you know, reading the judgment.

These people are supposed to be making the law. That's literally their job.

It seemed that way.

Really good point.

Hope so, they are frothing on Reddit that Baroness Falkner was lying that only people with GRCs were affected by the ruling. No, it was entirely about GRCs because they could make a tenuous claim that the lady certificate applied to the protected characteristic of sex. Other men, without GRCs, had no such potential legitimate claim, however tenuous.

This along with their behaviour - this incarnation of Labour are an embarrassment. An absolute shower. Something really needs to be done about the calibre of people who get into these positions of responsibility, this is absolutely not the UK's brightest and best. They're not even basically professional.

Interestingly, the Chair had no problem with the initial question about a women’s rambling group including men (but only those men who claim to be women). She didn’t admonish that MP and say that her question about walking groups had nothing to do with the SC decision. Maybe they thought people would imagine images of the fragrant (bollocks) of ‘Myrtle’ and ‘Petunia’ in tweed skirts revelling in floating o’er the hills with other ladies.

The sporting question was more real about the impact on women. A ‘Southpark’ image of a burly bloke in 1st place, with possibly bruised women in 2nd and 3rd were too close to home. Not to mention the testimonies of women in swimming; with males being allowed to expose themselves to them in the changing room, and males also enabled to commit voyeurism on the women. All without consent. Raises a few uncomfortable realities about the consequences for women.

I haven’t had time to watch this yet.

What I found interesting about retired Judge McCloud on BBC Newscast was that several times they clearly ring-fenced the c10,000 people with a GRC. Almost as though they were “true trans”.

As we know one of the reasons Stonewall etc. probably didn’t apply to intervene in the SC case was because the case was only about those people who have a GRC. It had already been established no GRC = sex recorded at birth.

Retired Judge McCloud is trying to appeal to the ECHR on the basis they now have two sexes. One is biological the other is as recorded on their birth certificate (changed by a GRC). To be fair it is nonsense but it is also potentially going to see GRC holders arguing they are different to non GRC holders. The internal fall out could be epic.

I've just watched the clips posted by Sex Matters. That's the first time I've heard Sarah Owen speak. She really is Smuggy,McSmugface isn't she? How embarrassing that she clearly hasn't read the judgement.

I've just finished listening/watching. I'm sort of glad Ive been doing other things at the same time so wasn't fully immersed as if I had been paying complete attention I think I'd be raging.

I may be wrong, but I found the panel asking questions to be rather annoying, seemingly not on top of the subject, idiots.

Are there really strict rules about the 'form' of how you can speak at these kinds of meetings? Because if I was there and across my subject I don't know how I'd hold my tongue and not say something like what redtoothbrush said: 'are you all cynical or stupid?' (and you weren't elected to be either!)
And Rebecca having to say 'with respect' more than once when correcting the chair - is it a form of speech you have to use?

Rebecca’s interventions were great.

Just got to the bit where Rebecca is saying something about how clear the judgement was and how the guidance needs the same clarity and then says 'sorry, that was a statement, not a question'.
Does anybody else hear the chair (?) say, sotto voce: 'that's not what we're here for'?

Jaw drop moment.

The chair's question that led up to those stats was actually phrased -
"I don't think it is up for discussion as to whether there is an issue around reputation and trust of the EHRC at the moment, particularly in the last few years [Falkner has been in post for 4.5 years]. Are you doing anything to improve that in your last six months? If not, just say that you're not."

This was very near the beginning of the session. The chair sets the tone. This was extraordinarily rude and unprofessional. How can the government find this level of discourse acceptable?

Mic drop moment.

Honestly these MPs are horrendous. They are creating and spreading the disinformation rather than debunking it or trying to act to change the law which would be the correct course of action if they genuinely wanted to do what they say they believe in.

They don't.

However you cut it they are liars and they know it.

It's dishonest.

Meanwhile they are the same bunch of people wondering why bloody Reform is doing so well in the polls. I just find it insane.

It's another example of capture where the 'women' part is all about 'TWAW (and the only ones who matter)'.

Sex Matters or another group really need to get on this and pressure that the women's brief and the equalities (grim laugh, there is only ONE group that means), must be split. They are now in direct conflict.

It's a bit embarrassing that they're called the Women and Equalities Committee, when you end up with a committee comprised of women (plus one gay man) who overwhelmingly think the job of the EHRC is to make sure that men who want to be women don't feel sad.

Take my hat off to Baroness Falkner for keeping her cool throughout.

I'm not sure I can bear to watch their hearing next week with Laura Bates talking about the manosphere - I'm not a huge fan of LB - but it might be interesting to see if they know what a woman is in a context where they don't feel they need to pander to TRAs.

There’s an issue around reputation and trust for the WESC too from where I’m standing. Or there would be if they were relevant in any way.