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

What happened re costs?

Just taking a brief moment to imagine how amazing our lives would be if men just stopped abusing or attacking women. I mean, just imagine all the things you wouldn't need to do!

I haven't had time to follow this today, and wondered if there is anywhere a summary! I know lots of comments here and links, but so short on time I wondered if there is a brief report anywhere.

Thanks

@CardinalLolzy

Just taking a brief moment to imagine how amazing our lives would be if men just stopped abusing or attacking women. I mean, just imagine all the things you wouldn't need to do!

Or could do.

Sorry @CardinalLolzy, I wasn't making sense then!

We keep going. 💪💪💪💪💪💪💪

@Letsgetreadytocrumble

The thing is though, we are not going to give up. Ordinary people donated 100 grand to this case, a hundred thousand pounds! and we will donate again... And again, and again, if needs be. We are not going away, women are not going away.

TRAs are always trying to frame GC feminists as some kind of ridiculous BNP style fringe group, who can be dismissed easily and who the vast majority people scoff at. But it's not the reality, and more and more women are realising this and speaking up. Look at this forum, look at the lengths they go to to try and shut Mumsnet down, why would they even care if we were just a tiny minority of loons who just talked total shit?

Onwards.

This is one of the oddest aspects of this whole situation. If I went knocking on doors or just walked down the street and canvassed opinion, the vast vast vast majority of people would agree with our position. It's really the TRAs who are the 'fringe' group

If you look at Scotland’s debate on selfID, some politicians are starting to acknowledge a conflict of rights: the challenge is to make politicians realise that women and girls need safeguarding. This debate has been so centred on the needs/wants of trans people’s vulnerabilities, to the detriment of women and girls.
I agree that trans people suffer abuse/discrimination.
But that sad fact does not mean that it’s up to women to have to be pliant say ‘there there, take our protections so you’ll feel better’.
This is above all about safeguarding.
There are two distinct, vulnerable groups.
Is is sexist to assume women and girls have to stay silent and smile while our rights and protections are erased.

@littlbrowndog

We keep going. 💪💪💪💪💪💪💪

💪💪💪💪💪

I think we have been betrayed and mislead all along. All politicians using slight of hand because they coiuld pull the wool over our eyes and pretend we were getting single sex rights when we were getting no such thing, we were getting self-id. Yes self i-d is here and has been here all along. Am I bloody angry

[quote CardinalLolzy]In fact they have a thread of their own from this afternoon:
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1390292462506283008[/quote]
Thanks for posting that! That’s a very helpful thread, fills in a lot of the gaps. I now understand the EHRC’s argument and the grounds for the judge’s decision much better.

“We desperately need legal clarity on the terms ‘transgender’ ‘transsexual’ and ‘gender reassignment’—I think the way they are currently being used, and the way the Equality Act interacts with the GRA 2004, is being
abused, misused, misapplied and misrepresented."

Thread: House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee -
'Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality & Human Rights Commission.'
10th Report of Session 2017–19:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1171166185045614602.html

thepuredrop EHRC’s position is untenable - requiring vulnerable women to litigate per service is grossly unfair, most likely discriminatory and, importantly, the public won’t buy it. As I read the judge’s comments today, I think an important factor in enforcing the exceptions will be the availability of alternatives for TW. Most of us support third spaces anyway and it seems the obvious solution, particularly if the number of people who identify as trans continues to rise.

This was a direct criticism of EHRC guidance relating to single sex rape and DV services by the Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2019:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/1470.pdf

So it seems like all the bollox about the “indistinguishable” transwoman was to make the case that single-sex services can’t have a policy of excluding all transwomen.

And the judge agreed. Which in practice means services letting transwomen in until they rape someone. I guess they were using the salami-slice and sob-story tactics after all. I bet the submission about the hypothetical TW showing up at a women’s in the middle of the night was very moving and contained precisely zero references to the feelings and needs of the female women in the refuge.

It's such a bullshit interpretation as the WESC link shows.

Towards the end of this podcast, David Bell, the Tavistock whistleblower, talks a bit about the misogyny he sees behind the whole trans ideology takeover of society.

He mentions how so many years of neoliberalism has caused our culture to divide people into skivers and strivers, and caught up in that is a tendency to see anyone with any kind of dependency or needs as lesser humans. This has the knock-on effect of viewing women who have any kind of sex-based needs as worthy of contempt.

I think he is right, and that this cultural notion has caused our culture to consider safeguarding with scorn. -if we are all super duper strong independent women, we don’t need safeguarding, right? And neither do adolescent girls.

It is dangerous, and blatantly untrue. It is perfectly possible to be
strong, ,independent, etc, and need safeguarding from men. And I really think we have to start pushing that message.

savageminds.substack.com/p/david-bell

Where is the guidance the WESC asked for?

I’m not sure that I’ve understood fully what went on today.

However for me my main concern are areas that women and girls have to be in, when they have no choice, where there are safeguarding issues. These are things like:
School
Psychiatric wards
Prison

I’d include boys and vulnerable men too.

I’d not focus on changing rooms as I think the public don’t understand and think that this is all feminists care about.

However schools for example, need to put safeguarding front and centre of everything. There are so many examples where they have bought in ‘lobbying’ agendas which infringe safeguarding to quite an alarming degree.

Surely these safeguarding issues are not for people to litigate one by one, they should be enshrined and protected?

So it seems like all the bollox about the “indistinguishable” transwoman was to make the case that single-sex services can’t have a policy of excluding all transwomen.

Even if the ‘indistinguishable transwomen’ were to be beneficiaries of single-sex exceptions, this would just be another boundary for Stonewall et al to push through and extend to all males with the pc of GR.

I am not happy about this. Indistinguishable bodies pah! My spade just got bigger.

Didn’t the lawyer for the EHRC in Maya F’s case actually state in court that a TW with a GRC can be legally excluded?

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]“We desperately need legal clarity on the terms ‘transgender’ ‘transsexual’ and ‘gender reassignment’—I think the way they are currently being used, and the way the Equality Act interacts with the GRA 2004, is being
abused, misused, misapplied and misrepresented."

Thread: House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee -
'Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality & Human Rights Commission.'
10th Report of Session 2017–19:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1171166185045614602.html[/quote]
You left out 'misunderstood'.

I bet the submission about the hypothetical TW showing up at a women’s [refuge] in the middle of the night was very moving and contained precisely zero references to the feelings and needs of the female women in the refuge.

This is not how women's refuges work either. The addresses are not made public in order to protect the women & children there. Women in need of refuge usually go through a referral process, not least as they often need to move out of the area.

Any male person turning up at a women's refuge in the middle of the night should not be admitted.

@CardinalLolzy

If I was brave I'd be posting a link to this on my 'socials' saying "Amazing that justice has prevailed and a judge ruled that people who are trans or are thinking about changing gender absolutely DO have the right to use the spaces they prefer. Finally an end to single-sex spaces in law - there's no reason why women's prisons, changing rooms, rape crisis centres or refuges should exclude ANY people based on being born male!"

(I won't be though, so if you do see words to this effect, it's not me!)

You'd have to add that it is good that men who identify as women are physically indistinguishable from women. Good for girl guide leaders, sleep in the same room as the girls on trips abroad and boarding school situations.