there are silent gaps. That leaves space for the activist advisors to nudge policies (if not the law itself) the way they would like it to be.
Agree Manderley but I feel more cynical about how EHRC have gone about it. It feels like there is self-interest or self-preservation at play in EHRC leaving the ambiguities unexplored and not clearly stating why EHRC can’t be clearer. They should be loudly calling for legal review so everyone can be clearer where they stand.
We have a few players in the voluntary sector giving -i’ll be generous- somewhat ambiguous and partisan advice and training to a gullible and scared public sector who have effectively outsourced their thinking on this to those few players.
This is where you get all the ‘getting ahead of the law’ and ‘trans people need rights’ claims from. And constant omission of ‘sex’ from the list of protected characteristics that public sector bodies list in relation to the Equalities Act.
Maybe EHRC guidance isn’t that strong anyway to stop organisations being able to take this stuff and run with it but by sitting on their hands they have enabled a lot of inaccuracies to be peddled which is against the interest of women and children and which will cost the public sector a lot to unpick. I don’t think the charity commission come out well out of this either for not keeping more of an eye where charities sail close to the wind, legally but that’s a separate issue maybe.
But I don’t know enough about how this area works really.. hence my question asking who (if anyone) can ask EHRC to review their current guidance.