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

@BoreOfWhabylon

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

Let them. The more light shone on their behaviour the better. The more light shone on the EHRC the better. The more attention drawn to this whole mess the better. I genuinely believe that TWAW as a claim can't withstand true popular scrutiny.

@Unsure33

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 ?

I don't want to be in your "section of society" any more than I want to be in the section of society that campaigns against gay rights, or against the rights of immigrants.

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

Also if they understood what it actually means to be a woman and the reasons behind this they would totally understand the legal arguments . It’s not just about toilets at all .

It’s not even about trans rights .

It’s about tackling a problem about how one group of rights can overrule another in a few specific circumstances .

I'm happy to ignore goaders today. Has anyone seen this reported on anywhere? Wasn't sure how much mainstream attention it'd attract.

@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?

Yep, and my employers guidance says I'm not to use the term because it's considered offensive and outdated. I wonder if the judge has seen the Stonewall transgender umbrella? Come on judge, move with the times.

Ignore the goading, time to analyse the judge's statements. He has contradicted Stonewall who forever say its a personal choice about where transsexuals (the EA2010 term) feel comfortable.

He's said the intent of Parliament is that they are considered DIFFERENT to their birth sex. That is not the same thing as being the opposite sex.

Unsure33
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 ?

Always very strange.

And as much as we cannot identify out of our sex, no one can identify into it.

"I genuinely believe that TWAW as a claim can't withstand true popular scrutiny."

Your problem is that even people who agree with you on a biological level, many don't think it's important, and are happy to treat trans women as women regardless.

And you know what happens to the people who do that? Nothing - they're fine.

@Shizuku

I was talking about posts on Twitter , not you .

And unfortunately this whole argument legally has become about sections of society , males and females . Legally but not necessarily against each other . Because no doubt there will be sections of both who have differing opinions . That’s life .

That usually is considered a highly objectionable term.

Interesting that the judge consistently referred to it.

Gutted but we fight on. Ben Summerskill, in the golden days of Stonewall, used to say that every defeat was useful because it shone more light, got more coverage, made people think — and this will do the same. There will be a lot of people out there scratching their heads and asking what this nonsense is about and learning from what they read. Stonewall has always known and said internally that gender ideology isn't a winner with the general public, which is why they decided to work behind the scenes and slip legislation in attached to the skirts of more popular moves. The more people realise what's going on, the sooner this will be over.

Except he also accepted the argument that sex is binary. So he's stated in his judgement that Parliament considers them different to their birth sex and therefore that only leaves one choice. He's ruled that they're seen as being legally female for this

Why not discuss the judges comments instead, much more useful.

@LowKeyLockee

Except he also accepted the argument that sex is binary. So he's stated in his judgement that Parliament considers them different to their birth sex and therefore that only leaves one choice. He's ruled that they're seen as being legally female for this

No he didn't.

ECHR said that weird thing that if you are this, you are that and therefore the other, but the judge didn't, he said DIFFERNT to your birth sex.

We will continue to crowd fund and continue to challenge this affront to women’s rights and we will win because every single time something like this happens, and every time the usual gloaty posters post their gloating, more people see what is happening and have their own ‘wtf?’ moments. ☀️ ☀️ ☀️

@fishareboring

That usually is considered a highly objectionable term.

Interesting that the judge consistently referred to it.

It's the term used in the Equality Act 2010.

Isn't it near the beginning of his argument that the complainant's statement that sex is binary and that sex in the equality act was unarguable? And there was something in the morning's thing where the EHRC accepted the claim that sex is binary for the Equality Act? I think there was

Shall I see you all in the ladies loo? The one I've been using for years and years without anyone even noticing? Your real issue is the moment the women who have been polite for decades decide not to be.

That would be a natural reaction to having a legal fiction jumped up and over biological reality. All those nice, eyes down, don't make a fuss, polite women will look you in the eye and tell you that you are making them feel uncomfortable. The truth they have been too naice to say previously! That is the consequence of such TAS actions. The pushback wiill hurt you , change all the polite niceties you have lived with, had the advantage of, for years and years.

Or will you be outside busking to make that 100K back? Behave! If you rely on the kindness of women, them pretending they cannot see what they see, the very least you can do is pretend to be the slightest bit grateful for it!

Judgement, not argument

I don't want to be in your "section of society" any more

Well that's just as well Shiz, because a judge just said Parliament considered you DIFFERENT to your birth sex. And as you always say sex is a spectrum, you clearly agree!

And you can be excluded as per the EA2010! Yay!

Thanks to whoever contributed money to this case. Trans people's protections, as enshrined in the Equality Act, have now been re-affirmed by a court! This is wonderful news for a vulnerable minority and we couldn't have done it without you.

and are happy to treat trans women as women regardless

This is meaningless, unless you can determine what being "treated like a woman" means.

@MadBadDaddy

Thanks to whoever contributed money to this case. Trans people's protections, as enshrined in the Equality Act, have now been re-affirmed by a court! This is wonderful news for a vulnerable minority and we couldn't have done it without you.

I agree, he has reinforced that there is no automatic inclusion!

So all that Stonewall guidance saying there is can get in the BIN.

I don't want to be in your "section of society" any more than I want to be in the section of society that campaigns against gay rights, or against the rights of immigrants.

Umm... you are in the section that campaigns against gay rights. Your 'section' denies that same sex attraction exists and seeks to deny people the ability to lawfully meet/ group together on the basis of same sex attraction. Hence the need for the LGBA.