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

If we are talking about prisons can I just ask a stupid question 🙋‍♀️ can a transman chose which prison they go to or would they automatically if they have a GRC or even if they self ID go to a mans prison ?

And as I am early to all this discussion I did not realise you could get a GRC without surgical intervention .

It’s a minefield .

You left out 'misunderstood'.

Did I, Robin. It's a quote from an anonymous member of the public, as presented in the WESC report on enforcement of the EA. Take it up with them.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

You left out 'misunderstood'.

Did I, Robin. It's a quote from an anonymous member of the public, as presented in the WESC report on enforcement of the EA. Take it up with them.

Poor understanding and attention to detail there from Robin, especially for a person working in the law.

So, on a practical level is it time to resurrect Man Friday?

1. There ‘should’ be no argument now with ‘preparing to transition’ or daily flip-flopping between m/f.

I can’t be the wrong kind of ‘man’ can I?

1. Could a shop, museum, leisure centre etc... ask me to not use the ‘men’s’ toilets / changing rooms?

1. I think someone at Westminster Palace needs to have a lot of meetings throughout the day & evening drinks in the bar, where the men guests need to go to the toilet - a lot.

1. Are there any interesting, privileged places where guests can make use of the facilities? Oh, I don’t know, places where you wear archaic uniforms and head gear? Or, the favourite pub?

I want to be a (legal) embarrassing stone in their shoe.

I defo think Man Friday needs to come back.

Does anyone know what was said about costs?

Excellent news.

Shall I see you all in the ladies loo? The one I've been using for years and years without anyone even noticing? Or will you be outside busking to make that 100K back?

30s: I recognise the concern of women & girls and those who protect their interests. However, it is in my view clear that Parliament has chosen to place transexual persons in a different position to those of their birth sex.

So this is quite a useful/interesting comment from the judge. A DIFFERENT position from birth sex is not the same position as the opposite sex.

I haven't managed to read all the tweets yet but this does underline what the EA2010 was getting at, that they are not default female.

Shizuku
Don't need to busk. Plenty of us have jobs. We'll raise the money again. And take it forward again. Hope this helps.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I defo think Man Friday needs to come back.

Absolutely. Bagsy the fluorescent green mankini

@littlbrowndog

We keep going. 💪💪💪💪💪💪💪

We do.

Sex isn't something we can identify out of.

I see the usual suspects are turning up for a bit of goady gloating, or gloaty goading, if you prefer.

@Swimminglanes

30s: I recognise the concern of women & girls and those who protect their interests. However, it is in my view clear that Parliament has chosen to place transexual persons in a different position to those of their birth sex.

So this is quite a useful/interesting comment from the judge. A DIFFERENT position from birth sex is not the same position as the opposite sex.

I haven't managed to read all the tweets yet but this does underline what the EA2010 was getting at, that they are not default female.

Yes, very good point. Surely an argument for third spaces rather than anything else?

You’ll probably see me in the toilets, putting up stickers for a crowdfunder.
Perhaps they’ll be pissed all over, too.

I can’t be bothered by gloaters. This is wayyyyy bigger than them. This is about us, and all the women and girls coming after us.

We fight for us.

I'm fascinated that anyone who calls themselves a transwoman/thinks they have "transitioned from male to female is happy that they are considered to be exactly the same as any man who wants to walk into the women's changing room.

Isn’t it strange that some posters hate and constantly berate the section of society they want to be part of? Especially when they refer to the part of their bodies they actually want to get rid of ?

What's the significance of the judge constantly referring to "transsexuals"? I thought this was held to be old fashioned and offensive according to guidance I've seen from certain lobby groups?

I hopethat cases like these will require more clarity in terminology. The more people become awareof the current meaning of terms, the better from a GC perspective. Most people still have no idea what's going on

I can’t be bothered by gloaters. This is wayyyyy bigger than them. This is about us, and all the women and girls coming after us.

Yes you're right. I will ignore them.

@Fallingirl

I can’t be bothered by gloaters. This is wayyyyy bigger than them. This is about us, and all the women and girls coming after us.

We fight for us.

Some of those women and girls are trans and they are doing you no harm - they are just trying to get on with their lives.

Hang on though... The Judge was referring to transexuals not trangendered people. He also asked and was reassured that they were physically indistinguishable from women. This is not the case though, judge has been misled, surely?

Aunty I was thinking of Man Friday too!

Anyways, I'm happy to donate to the next crowdfunder. And spread the word far and wide.

@BoreOfWhabylon

Hang on though... The Judge was referring to transexuals not trangendered people. He also asked and was reassured that they were physically indistinguishable from women. This is not the case though, judge has been misled, surely?

Yes, and taken out of context he's misgendering a lot of trans men with that comment.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1390311909329719297.html

The code does not, as C suggests, make any suggestion go "automatic" entitlement to access on the basis of acquired gender. Exclusion is permissible when a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, eg. of privacy & decency.

Good. That is what we have been saying all along. There is no automatic entitlement. Exclusion is permissible. Stonewall et al have been saying its not permissible. Good to have this in the judgement.

I note that the judge did not quote any of ECHR's legal arguments as being correct. He has reinforced that transsexuals were considered by Parliament as DIFFERENT to THEIR birth sex and can be excluded.