Help - work misrepresenting EA2010 & bringing in Gendered Intel

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

Looking for some help on discussing some things at work.
While I feel it is time to put my head above the parapet I do want to ensure this is done in the most clear and factual manner to reduce any blowback. I've tried searching on Mumsnet and wider interwebs but not found exactly what I'm looking for.

I've seen that my organisation (which is in the public sector) misstates the protected characteristic of sex as Gender. Is this a breach of their public sector duty? Can someone point out somewhere that specifically states that so that I could send a link to them that is from an official govt source?

Also my work is bringing in Gendered intelligence to do training, which is something I've feared for a while. I recall seing threads discussing issues with their materials and I know they were key in lobbying on GRA reform. Can someone point me to concrete examples where they have sexist/factually incorrect materials especially if it misstates legal requirements around equality act/employee provisions (e.g. single sex provisions). I want to challenge the choice of provider, I am sure they were chosen due to personal recommendation rather than any objective assessment of their training materials.

I don't think I would be fired for it but honestly these days I feel you can't be too careful
Maya's appeal can't come soon enough.

And thank you PearPickingPorky, I try to put my obsessive reading to good use.

Please do not use the EHRC as a source of information.

It has been captured!

ie its recommendations fall in line with Stonewall teaching not what is the law.

@stumbledin

Please do not use the EHRC as a source of information.

It has been captured!

ie its recommendations fall in line with Stonewall teaching not what is the law.

If it were any other regulator, I would say you're right, but the EHRC is not a clear cut case.

This is the statutory body that public bodies are expected to refer to when it comes to the Equality Act. Because it has no power to override the Equality Act, only to interpret and help implement it, where it issues guidance that conflicts with the EqA, the solution is to refer people to the text of the EqA and the Explanatory Notes issued alongside it.

Where it correctly interprets the Equality Act, such as in its Statement on Sex and Gender Reassignment published in 2018 or the school guidance I mention upthread, I do refer people to the EHRC. (Which has quietly changed some of its most egregious misrepresentations of the Act since 2018 btw.)

The published EHRC Technical Guidance which I linked to was published in 2014 and accurately interprets the Equality Act.

That's why I referred to it. The absolutely shameful new draft guidance leaked last year has not been officially published and did not replace the 2014 guidance. So we can continue to refer to the original guidance.

All of the guidance documents produced by trans rights organisations that I have seen to date directly contradict this 2014 EHRC Technical Guidance. Which is very helpful to know when talking to schools about the potentially unlawful and harmful new guidance from those organisations.

As an aside, just for information, the EHRC has not been captured in the sense we normally ascribe to that word in this context. That would imply that it once was free and impartial. It wasn't. From the day it was set up, it was heavily influenced by trans rights campaigners who were perfectly positioned to counteract the Equality Act because of the connections they had made during the GRA process. No women's rights groups had the same advantage, so there was no input from them at the time.

Which is why its first guidance for traders, service providers and employers already misinterpreted certain aspects of the law in favour of those who identify as trans. I think Jane Clare Jones posted about that original draft process on Twitter.