Ann Sinnott is asking for clarity on guidance for the Equality Act

[MilleniumHallsWalledGarden]

around the guidance for the Equality Act 2010, and is crowdfunding for a judicial review. Thought I ought to spread the word.

[title edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

[quote Namechangetoavoidmra]@milesjuppismybitch sorry, I dont understand your question, but i posted a link to the crowd funder website as someone was asking and I didnt know that wasnt allowed.
Sorry MN moderators. I have read the guidelines but clearly not absorbed them.
Please dont let it jeopardise this thread. Was just a silly multitasking mistake as I should have realised there was a reason no one else had posted it[/quote]
Sorry - I'm clearly being too jumpy. This thread is clearly being closely watched!

Yes Michelle, that was a brilliant post. I luffs you lot 😊

Great post Michelle

Thanks Michelle. That really does make the implications of this very clear.

Thanks for new title. Much clearer now. Over 11 now

They've basically decided that the EA is 'outdated', so they'll take it upon themselves to change the words to mean what they want them to mean. I can't quite believe the arrogance.

This is what we're up against, a colossal wall of arrogance and contempt -- for ordinary people who don't believe the narrative, as well as for women in general. Yet it's starting to crumble, and Ann's crowdjustice fund is up to £1180 already. There is hope.

£11,180!

Probably autistic, but with guidance above, have learned how to use a spade! As datun said, this is massive..

yay over half way already!

It's a disgrace that women have to fund JRs to have existing legal rights respected.

Yet here we are, again. I'll help out later, and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

I've chucked my spadesworth in too...clarity on this issue is very much needed so we know where we are.

Women have always had to fight for everything, contributing pennies and pounds, bit by bit. Look at how the first refuges were set up.
Then the men come along and demand their "rights".
Same old...

I'm reading a social history book on women in Early Modern England and this line jumped out at me

'[ … ] the gender order in early modern England will suggest a regime deeply misogynistic, the product of male contempt, fear, and self-interest packaged as principle'.

Seems times don't change.

doesn't time fly

Donated - gave CJ’s £2 donation to Ann’ campaign.

Ann - if you read these boards, you are awesome.

I’ve just had a little dig too.

I mostly lurk on these boards but they have been eye-opening to me and I have benefited so much from the education.

Thank you to everyone who continues to fight the good fight.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

They've basically decided that the EA is 'outdated', so they'll take it upon themselves to change the words to mean what they want them to mean. I can't quite believe the arrogance.

This is what we're up against, a colossal wall of arrogance and contempt -- for ordinary people who don't believe the narrative, as well as for women in general. Yet it's starting to crumble, and Ann's crowdjustice fund is up to £1180 already. There is hope.

This is it. The intent of the GRA has been misrepresented and twisted out of all recognition.

'Attributes of sex', should be just that. Not clothes, hair or make up.

If the law can be misrepresented, does it mean that any defendant can plead that the law is outdated and e.g. it wasn't theft but a re-distribution of capital

Here's a useful resource for people whose workplace has been stonewalled, with the loss of women-only facilities. Also useful to anyone seeking correct information about the Equality Act 2010:

https://aealliance.co.uk

It's the Authentic Equity Alliance, which offers training and consultancy based on the law. Ann founded it after she left local politics, as i've just discovered from her Crowdjustice page. Looks as if Cambridge's loss is women's gain.

It's at £12,247 now. I don't think it's as fast as Allison Bailey's one, but it is an impressive show of the strength of feeling around this. Keep going.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I didn't get to contribute to AB's fundraiser before it was pulled so happy to pledge to this.

'Attributes of sex', should be just that. Not clothes, hair or make up.

Dead right, Datun.

We had a friendly and helpful transman on MN recently, in the 'Ask me anything' section. I asked what evidence trans people had to provide that they "had been living for at least two years in their acquired gender'" (as the GRA requires). I could only think of changing their name and appearance, eg wearing clothes traditionally worn by the other sex. The transman answered that it was really just those two things.

And that's the law as it stands, without even self-ID.

I have tried to share this numerous times on Twitter and every time it either doesn't show the thumbnail embedded, or stays in the "drafts" and won't post.

Hmm. How convenient.

I truly believe this is a "win or lose, we win" cases. Like Maya's, but even more so.

Does anyone know when Maya's appeal is due to take place? Seems like ages since the tribunal.