Ann Sinnott of Authentic Equity Alliance vs EHRC Judicial Review of incorrect Equality Act guidance

[R0wantrees]

The presiding judge decided that this should go straight to a 1-day oral Permissions Hearing.

This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC and will also rule on request for a costs cap (to protect AEA) should the case go forward.

AEA about the case,
"Official sources provide unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act!
Yes, you read that right! It's shocking, isn't it?

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.

The Complainant is Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA), a Community Interest Company established to promote and further the interests of women and girls."
Website: aealliance.co.uk/

Ann Sinnott (founder/director) twitter.com/AnnMSinnott

Twitter live tweeting of case via #AEAvEHRC and #IStandWithAnnSinnott

Oh FFS.

Cam we appeal?

Well we just keep fighting. I am not happy with the idea that a persons gender identity may be prioritised over my sex based rights.

So we have to take each institution to court

Looks like it.

Like the woman who was sexually assaulted in prison because they housed a male in the female estate had to take it to court (MoJ case.)

Wasn't there a woman suffering mental health issues having a panic because she was on a ward with a biological male? She was scared of males, IIRC, and when she objected she was gaslit (gaslighted?) and told she was wrong, the male was actually a woman?

So every woman who suffers like this has to raise a mininum of £30,000 to take it to court?

A very worrying thought just occurred. Every TRA will be out there invading and again misrepresenting because the act still stands and exceptions still stand but they have a way of misrepresenting the law.

any person proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Including, say, a haircut?

In Scotland they whittled it down (for transgender males) to getting some people to use opposite sex female pronouns and changing utility bill/s to say Miss/Ms/Mrs

Don't be too downcast everyone. I'll cheer you all up later with my unique ability to spot the difference between a male TS and a woman. You'll be wowed at my accuracy photo after photo.

I can't, as yet, distinguish between a TS with 'surgery' and without. But baby steps.

I really don't understand the judgement? It seems to me that the judge is saying that it would only be legal to exclude transwomen from women-only sex segregated spaces if there was an 'exceptional' reason? And that excluding these males from women only areas would 'disadvantage' them? I don't understand where the law says that any 'exceptionality' has to be shown to introduce a single sex space - surely the nature of all single-sex spaces is that the provision of that specific service is 'exceptional' in itself due to safeguarding/dignity reasons etc - otherwise it wouldn't legally be allowed to be single-sex in the first place anyway. Since when is there an additional hurdle that needs to be proven to exclude some males who call themselves women? That isn't the law as it stands?? Further, I can't see any disadvantage to males here - surely they can still access equal provision of same-sex provision i.e. that which is for males. It's not reducing their access to provision at all so where is the 'disadvantage' the judge alludes to? Really don't understand the judgement

Wasn't there a woman suffering mental health issues having a panic because she was on a ward with a biological male? She was scared of males, IIRC, and when she objected she was gaslit (gaslighted?) and told she was wrong, the male was actually a woman?

Yes.

www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancaster-mum-fear-men-locked-hospital-ward-transgender-patient-653048?amp

Wasn't there a woman suffering mental health issues having a panic because she was on a ward with a biological male? She was scared of males, IIRC, and when she objected she was gaslit (gaslighted?) and told she was wrong, the male was actually a woman?

www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancaster-mum-with-fear-of-men-locked-on-hospital-ward-with-transgender-patient-1-8963648

@highame

A very worrying thought just occurred. Every TRA will be out there invading and again misrepresenting because the act still stands and exceptions still stand but they have a way of misrepresenting the law.

They don't need to be a TRA. They can be any old male who's heard of this and feels like going into women's spaces for whatever reason they fancy. The magic words are now 'I propose to change gender'.

Women who are forced to share mixed sex refuge accommodation don’t have the resources to take it to court. They are generally facing multiple legal cases ( divorce, child custody, non molestation orders) anyway which they might not get legal aid for so no way can they cope with another one.

surely the nature of all single-sex spaces is that the provision of that specific service is 'exceptional' in itself due to safeguarding/dignity reasons etc - otherwise it wouldn't legally be allowed to be single-sex in the first place anyway.

You'd think.

@yourhairiswinterfire

So we have to take each institution to court

Looks like it.

Like the woman who was sexually assaulted in prison because they housed a male in the female estate had to take it to court (MoJ case.)

Wasn't there a woman suffering mental health issues having a panic because she was on a ward with a biological male? She was scared of males, IIRC, and when she objected she was gaslit (gaslighted?) and told she was wrong, the male was actually a woman?

So every woman who suffers like this has to raise a mininum of £30,000 to take it to court?

This is what I find amazing about this, though. The crowdfunders.

Despite being accused of having the backing of alt-right money (pahahaha!), these cases are supported by thousands of women chipping in what they can. It is almost like a single-issue vote with money instead of crosses in boxes.

The will from a vast swathe of women exists to tackle this.

Politicians would do well to look at this level of feeling and consider the amount of support this shows.

I will keep chipping in each and every time. So will many others. How many more are there who can't afford to do this, or are unaware of the fundraising pages?

surely the nature of all single-sex spaces is that the provision of that specific service is 'exceptional' in itself due to safeguarding/dignity reasons etc - otherwise it wouldn't legally be allowed to be single-sex in the first place anyway.

Yes, why isn't women's privacy and dignity around the opposite sex "proportionate" and "legitimate"? I believe that's what the exemptions were intended to protect.

I’m surprised. And bloody cross. Will be interesting to see the full text of the decision. From what I could gather I think there should be the ability to appeal.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

surely the nature of all single-sex spaces is that the provision of that specific service is 'exceptional' in itself due to safeguarding/dignity reasons etc - otherwise it wouldn't legally be allowed to be single-sex in the first place anyway.

You'd think.

This is what I can't get my head around. In what situation is an actual single-sex space allowed? He's ruling that it's "none", right?

He's ruling that it's "none", right?

He's ruling that it's whenever a male doesn't ask to be let in.

That's the one, thanks R0wan

Poor woman, she must have been utterly terrified :(

They don't need to be a TRA. They can be any old male who's heard of this and feels like going into women's spaces for whatever reason they fancy.
The magic words are now 'I propose to change gender'.

The only way a woman can get a single-sex space is if she says she is a TM and needs a TM-specific service, ie, cannot be with men.
But then the EHRC would argue that the comparator for a TM is a man without a GRC, and in effect, a man without a GRC has no legal basis to be separated from another man without a GRC, so no discrimination can occur.
Women are fucked either way. We cannot have single-sex provision in practice.

I always thought that Greer was a bit heavy handed when she said that women had no idea how much men hate us.

I have changed my mind about that. The woman is a Seer.

Chin up, Ann, and thank you for what you have achieved for us.

This is disgraceful.

It is a woeful misinterpretation of the legislation to the expense of vulnerable women who don't, on an individual basis, have the means to fight it.

40s: No grounds to show that the guidance has placed women and girls at a disadvantage.

a) I didn't see the judge ask if women and girls have been placed at a disadvantage (might be wrong)

b) So ... is this about providing proof that where women and girls have been placed at a disadvantage, the service provider acted on guidance from the EHRC?

c) so does it require FOIAs to find out if each service provider used the guidance of the EHRC?

I am trying to work out why Liz Truss said self i-d was off the table. Was that a callous misrepresentation?

any person proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

The fuck does this even mean though? Aside from the fact that you cant change 'physiological attributes of sex' what 'other attributes of sex' are there that aren't phyisiological? What can that possibly even mean that isn't horrifically sexist?