Where are these screenshots from, and do they show what the sense claims them them to show?

[JellySlice]

I have been sent these screenshots (there are four, so it will take two posts to show them), which I am told demonstrate that:

Trans people do not need a GRC to be treated in every way according to their chosen gender (item 2.20 and Example).

Children who transition must be treated as their chosen gender (item 2.21).

In deciding whether a trans person has been discriminated against, there is no requirement to compare their treatment with the treatment of others of their birth sex (item 4.5 and Example).

That the GRA specifically allows trans people to use the changing room of their choice, and that members of the sex that a trans person identifies as do not have to be consulted about including the trans person in their services (Item 13.58 an example).

That if a trans person 'passes' then they should always be treated as their chosen gender (item 13.59).

Does anyone recognise where these screenshots came from? And, if they are genuinely whatever they purport to be, are they being misinterpreted?

Items 2.2 and 2.21

Wrong wrong wrong

No, those were 2.20, 2.21 and 4.5

Here are 13.58 and 13.59

Surely it's up to whoever sent you the screenshots to say where they're from?

This is vaguely familiar, the examples ring some bells, is this an incorrect and deliberate misinterpretation of the EA2010?

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

There are both from this document. The EHRC have been shown to be wrongly interpreting the Equality Act 2010 before.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf

This is an article by Ann Sinnott who explains why she (and others) thinks that official guidance from the EHRC is undermine the Equality Act 2010.

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-2010-equality-act-is-being-undermined-by-official-guidance/

The actual text of the equalities act 2010 can be found online here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

For the most part, it does not say what this person is claiming it says. (It is however true that gender reassignment includes the rather nebulous category of "intending to undergo gender reassignment" - which pretty much means "if I say I'm going to get round to applying for a GRC at some stage in the future, the protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies to me.")

But I think the crucial bit is this (in Schedule 3):
Gender reassignment

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The matters are—

(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

Additionally, In particular, see part 14 (general exceptions) and schedule 23 (general exceptions) - these bits cover (among other things) single sex sports.

I'm pretty sure that's the withdrawn guidance - no longer accessible on the EHRC page - that Ann Sinnott is seeking a Judicial Review over? They've removed it, but not told the myriad of organisations relying upon it that they have done so - and they've gone way past the Equality Act framing in offering their advice. That's arguably unlawful, hence the JR. Quangos can't invent the law as they go along, to make it what they would like it to be.

This is why we need cases such as Ann Sinnott's - everyone needs them, actually, not just women whose rights are being removed by stealth, because right now people are sure they know what the law is, all because they've read guidance by orgs advised by Stonewall et all instead of reading the Equality Act, itself. And while absolutely we need the law to protect all groups subjected to harms and abuses to be protected from that, blindly ignoring the reality that male people are demanding to access female spaces - even communal changing areas, and rape crisis centres, and prisons - and women who protest are called bigots even when they can prove that women have been raped and assaulted as a direct consequence - is just batshit insane, and needs legal oversight.

These are such weird times. Human beings can't change sex. Gender identity is certainly hugely significant and important to people, and should - must - be respected, as an intrinsic and fundamental part of how they view themselves, and the world. But since when is one person's unprovable and subjective belief absolute grounds to devastate the human rights of all women they encounter? To erase the right of women to object having to strip in the company of someone exposing their penis, which is precisely what happens in a communal changing room, when you strip away the gender woo? Usually, if someone exposes their dick to women who do not consent it's a police matter - a sexual offence. Suddenly, Center Parcs and Virgin Active are meekly agreeing that it's a fundamental human right and no women may object to their forced participation, and all manner of groups are loudly cheerleading this hideous affront on women's basic, fundamental rights and dignity. It's just... mad.

We all need clarity.

See thread about Ann Sinnott's case here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4006401-Ann-Sinnott-is-asking-for-clarity-on-guidance-for-the-Equality-Act

What you're seeing is the subject of her case:

For nearly 10 years, unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act (EA2010) has been displayed on the website of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and on the Government Equalities Office (GEO) website for 5 years.

Over these ten years, the guidance has been widely accessed and further disseminated by countless organisations of all types. As a result, the unlawful guidance is reflected in the equality policies of organisations and institutions throughout the UK.

EHRC and GEO guidance is in breach of EA2010, Schedule 3, Sections 26, 27 and 28

This is a legal case to ensure that EA2010 guidance accurately reflects the Act.