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

EHRC:
”a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment”

The Equality Act defines women and men by sex (not gender identity) and describes single sex exceptions (not single gender identity exceptions). Many/most people do not have a gender identity and gender identity is not a protected characteristic.
Sex is one of the nine protected characteristics, gender reassignment is another.

UK government also defines woman and man by sex rather than gender identity so the EHRC is in conflict:

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

@R0wantrees

EHRC: ”a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment”

The Equality Act defines women and men by sex (not gender identity) and describes single sex exceptions (not single gender identity exceptions). Many/most people do not have a gender identity and gender identity is not a protected characteristic.
Sex is one of the nine protected characteristics, gender reassignment is another.

UK government also defines woman and man by sex rather than gender identity so the EHRC is in conflict:

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

The problem with that thread is that Lord Lucas adds in his own definition of 'male' and 'female' which is not found in the Act to come to his conclusion.

Apologies, but you can't just make up law to mean what you want it to...

Women & Equalities Committee
Oral evidence: Reform of the Gender Recognition
Act, HC 884
Wednesday 10 February 2021

67-68
Karon Monaghan : ...The Equality Act works by protecting people against discrimination because they have got particular characteristics. One set of characteristics that is protected under the Act concerns gender reassignment. If you are a person who is undergoing, or has undergone, gender reassignment, you are protected against discrimination, just as you are protected against discrimination because you are disabled, from an ethnic minority group and so on.
Separately, the Equality Act protects against sex discrimination, and it defines sex very precisely as being a man or being a woman.Then it defines being a man or being a woman as being male or female. So “gender reassignment” is concerned with protecting trans people or people who are undergoing gender reassignment against discrimination, and the Act separately protects females and males against sex discrimination. (continues)

Naomi Cunningham : I would just like to finish this thought, if I may. The fact that all those exceptions are founded on biological sex means that although the legal formalities of justifying excluding an individual with a GRC from a women-only service or space may be slightly different, in practice the answer is likely to be the same in almost every situation, because in practice it makes no difference whether someone has a certificate or not. It doesn’t make a difference to whether it impinges on the dignity and privacy of women using that service, or overrides their consent.
For example, if I use a women-only changing room, my consent is to
undress in the company of other women, and the reason why parliament has said that I am entitled to have the benefit of those exceptions is to do with biological sex. The fact that somebody has a gender recognition certificate doesn’t actually change that. It doesn’t mean that I feel more comfortable in the presence of somebody, in that particular situation, who I experience as male. A certificate doesn’t make a difference. I think that is quite important to understand, and how commonplace this is and how fundamentally it is based on consent. To override that is seriously concerning.

Robin Moira White: I slightly disagree with Karon on the analysis of the Act and I think it is important.
... The definition in the Equality Act is that a woman is a female of any age and a man is a male of any age. Forgive me, Karon’s analysis is perfectly intellectually valid, but a different analysis—and we haven’t tried this through—is that all that those definitions do is say that a girl is a woman and a boy is a man. ELA’s view is that there is a complete lack of clarity about that in the Act, so working out who is in which sex for the purposes of the Act is still something that needs to be clarified either in terms of litigation or in more legislation"

White indicates the need for women to push parliamentarians to make clear, not only that girls and women are human beings who are female, but also what is meant by female

Question for Women and Equalities
UIN HL2276, tabled on 5 March 2020

Lord Lucas (Conservative)
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their definition of (1) man, (2) woman, (3) male, (4) female, (5) boy, (6) girl, (7) transgender, (8) sex, (9) gender, and (10) gender identity."

Answer
23 March 2020
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
In the Equality Act 2010, "man" is defined as "a male of any age"; and "woman" as "a female of any age". The other terms listed in the question are not defined, except that "the protected characteristic of sex" is defined in Section 11 of the Equality Act as a reference to a man or a woman, or to persons of the same sex, as appropriate.

The Government Equalities Office provided a list of terms to help set the context and support respondents in completing the 2018 Gender Recognition Act Consultation. This included short descriptions of the terms ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘transgender’ and ‘gender identity’: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721725/GRA-Consultation-document.pdf

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-03-05/HL2276

GRA Consultation Document
July 2018
Sex: Assigned by medical practitioners at birth based on physical characteristics.
Sex can be either male or female.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, EHRC Chair, IWD Debate, Lords Grand Committee 11 03 21 16 18 00
11 Mar 2021

Youtube transcript
(extract)

"In this house recently we passed the ministerial and other maternity
allowances bill where the drafters of the bill decided to describe
those who benefits from its very welcome provisions as persons rather than women or mothers. I mentioned this my lords as this is
pertinent to our work at EHRC.
At the commission it's becoming increasingly clear to us that the most contentious work, but we have to do, is with that critical issue of balancing different rights. And as we seek to reduce discrimination
and sometimes even hate, we don't want to see one group pitted
against another.
But we're clear too that we mustn't shy away from difficult judgments of balance in the name of political correctness or appearing to be in one camp versus another. We stand for all the protected characteristics but we also judge every policy issue on its merits
and with guidance from the equality acts.
Hence we look forward to the review on the guidance of legislative language promised by the government in this regard and we were very pleased with the successful amendments moved by Lord Lucas and Lord Winston, both I know it was speaking in the debate today that successfully got the bill through this house." (continues)

Lords Lucas and Winston ammendments referenced:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/172/5801172-I.pdf

The problem with that thread is that Lord Lucas adds in his own definition of 'male' and 'female' which is not found in the Act to come to his conclusion.

If a word is not specifically defined in an Act, would it be correct to assume that the standard definition of such a word is what is meant?

Apologies, but you can't just make up law to mean what you want it to...

And you can't just change biological facts to be what you want them to be.

'Transwomen' are male, women are female.

Lord Winston
(Lab) - #MOMABill debate HOL 22.02.21
23 Feb 2021

(extract)
"I have to say that every single one of us in this chamber, every single person outside in the street, every citizen of the United Kingdom
was born from a mother's uterus. We forgive the muddled biology that we've heard a little bit earlier in this debate. The fact is only a woman can give rise to a baby."

The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

Really this comment is quite revealing in itself. There was clearly an expectation that women wouldnt know or understand what what was happening here. Thus they wouldn't notice, or they would just be nice and inclusive about it all. After all we've been socialised to be nice haven't we. And it's been skipped in under the radar everywhere else. So it should have been easy here for them.

What a shock for them to find that women say no and fight back. Pretty much the only place in the world. It must be terribly disappointing as an activist to see the world go in the direction they want, apart from the one place where they live. Fondly known as t**f island. 😁

Is this the let’s redefine the adjectives “male” and “female” so that they no longer refer to biological sex thing again?

Is there anywhere we can read the details if the actual judgement? I understand Anne was refused permission to proceed to judicial review. Does anyone know if she has right of appeal? Or if she is planning to appeal? Will the Maya Forstater judgement impact on this?

For further references/ links to Christine Burns opinions and Press For Change's influence on UK legislation:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

from thread, PencilsinSpace wrote,
(extract)
"The trans rights movement started with the Beaumont Society - a club for heterosexual cross-dressing men and their wives. TS could join too but they said no to drag queens because homophobia. Stephen Whittle was the first FTM to join Beaumont and was very active in the organisation.

The various demographics have been inseparable throughout PFC history. They championed the use of the word trans as it did not discriminate between TS and TV.

So it was never a case of the trans (as in TS) umbrella widening to include TVs and cross-dressers, rather it was the TV and cross-dressers umbrella widening to include TS.

PFC were consulted on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act in 1999. Women were not. Let that sink in. Women were not consulted on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act

PFC were talking about self-ID in 2000
Also in 2000 PFC were talking about an ultimate goal of just not recording sex

PFC were actively consulted (as in, invited to meetings in government departments and sent confidential drafts of reports for feedback) from the earliest stages of the work that resulted in the GRA.

It was PFC themselves who first spotted the potential problem with inheritance and primogeniture and actively suggested an exception. As far as I can tell this is the only exception they thought reasonable - but I'd have to dig out the original archived correspondence to verify that. It's all carefully preserved apparently because they're very proud of what they've done." (continues)

robin
“Apologies, but you can't just make up law to mean what you want it to...”
Have the replies helped to clarify things for you?

Is this the let’s redefine the adjectives “male” and “female” so that they no longer refer to biological sex thing again?

No doubt buoyed by James Morton, Scottish Trans Alliance et al success in Scotland.

March 2018
Fairplay For Women
'Like a thief in the night: The Scottish bill that stole the word woman'
(extract)
"Last year while we were all looking the other way and distracted by the UK government’s proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act the word woman was stolen from us. It was sneakily done by the Scottish parliament and hidden behind a smoke screen. That smoke screen was The Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill.

The Bill introduced the ‘gender representation objective’ – a target that women should make up 50% of non-executive board membership.
The purpose of this bill was admirable. It was to help women overcome the institutional sexism we suffer due to our sex. Positive action to redress the imbalances that have arisen from centuries of historical disadvantage. It was to acknowledge the reality that institutionalised inequality and sexist attitudes stop most women from reaching their full potential in public life. Financial barriers, income inequality, the gender pay gap, sexist attitudes, gender stereotyping, women’s disproportionate share of caring responsibilities, the undervaluing of women’s paid work, and media portrayals of women, to name but a few influences, all play a role in the sexism that prevents a fair number of women being involved in public life.

But in a cruel twist of irony it was also to be the perfect trojan horse to steal the very meaning of the words woman and female from us." (continues)
fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

@R0wantrees you honestly deserve some sort of medal for services to women.

Apologies, but you can't just make up law to mean what you want it

Apologies, but you can just change the meaning of woman to make it mean what you want.

PFC were actively consulted (as in, invited to meetings in government departments and sent confidential drafts of reports for feedback) from the earliest stages of the work that resulted in the GRA.

Guardian 2013 article about formation of Press For Change includes interviews with Stephen Whittle, Christine Burns, Paris Lees, Sarah Brown, James Barrett

(extract)
"Whittle, who "transitioned" nearly 40 years ago, was one of three trans men and three trans women who did an unusual thing in 1992: they went to meet Liberal Democrat MP Alex Carlile in Westminster. The unusual element was not the meeting but the fact that they travelled together – at the time, trans people never dared to because it increased the likelihood that they would be spotted and abused. These six wanted to start a campaign group; Carlile advised them to avoid the word "transsexual". So, in Grandma Lee's teashop opposite Big Ben, an anodyne name, Press for Change, was chosen." (continues)

Christine Burns is one of a generation who vividly remembers reading about Ashley in the papers when she was a young child. (Ashley appeared in a six-week special in the News of the World: "They were one of the very few who paid me and they behaved impeccably. I was very sad when the News of the World closed," says Ashley.) The existence of someone like her in the public eye was a great comfort for Burns. In the 90s, when she was chair of the Women's Supper Club of the local Conservative party association in Cheshire, she quietly joined Press for Change. Even then, the new activists dared not be openly trans. "The thing that held us back in the 1990s campaigning was that fear of being out," admits Burns. Eventually, she came out in 1995; she jokes that she realised she was more embarrassed to be a member of the Conservative party than openly transsexual.

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Apologies, but you can't just make up law to mean what you want it

Unless you’re Stonewall.

@Erikrie

The ‘Feminist’ section of Mumsnet became the unofficial base for radicalising ordinary women who knew no more than what the leading figures were telling them.

Really this comment is quite revealing in itself. There was clearly an expectation that women wouldnt know or understand what what was happening here. Thus they wouldn't notice, or they would just be nice and inclusive about it all. After all we've been socialised to be nice haven't we. And it's been skipped in under the radar everywhere else. So it should have been easy here for them.

What a shock for them to find that women say no and fight back. Pretty much the only place in the world. It must be terribly disappointing as an activist to see the world go in the direction they want, apart from the one place where they live. Fondly known as t**f island. 😁

There was clearly an expectation that women wouldnt know or understand what what was happening here. Thus they wouldn't notice, or they would just be nice and inclusive about it all

I think what they meant to say is that this is where the lost the control
over the narrative.

@Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

Just caught up & feel sick. Literally any man just has to be in the women's toilets/changing room/whatever with my daughters to indicate that he's changing gender. Fuck off.

How the fuck do we protect ourselves & our daughters when our only defence against men has been single sex spaces?

Just what I am feeling. Remembering the number of times I have fled to the Ladies to avoid horrible men. The times I used changing rooms to breastfeed as there wasn’t anywhere else . Taking my teenage dd for her first bra fitting.

Remembering the number of times I have fled to the Ladies to avoid horrible men.

YY

UK Kircaldy and Dunfernline
2019

Dundee Chronicle
(extract)
"A mother has blasted the sentence given to a sex offender who attacked her 10-year-old daughter in a supermarket toilet.

The woman – who cannot be named to protect the identity of her child – voiced fury that Katie Dolatowski had been freed to serve her sentence in the community.

Dolatowski, 18, sexually assaulted the girl in the toilets of Morrisons, Kirkcaldy.

She grabbed the terrified youngster by the face, shoved her into the cubicle and ordered her to remove her trousers.

But instead of being jailed at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, Dolatowski, who identifies as a woman but was believed by her victim’s family to be a man, was given community payback and tagging orders.

The mum felt “very, very let down” and said: “I don’t have any confidence whatsoever that he will not go out and do something equally as bad or worse.”

The girl had been sledging when the assault occurred on March 4, last year, a month after Dolatowski had filmed a 12-year-old girl on the toilet in another supermarket in Dunfermline." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3496984-Article-in-Dundee-Courier-about-assault-of-10-year-old-girl-in-supermarket-toilets

(Dolatowski was male and identified as trans)

Nice cuppa for you R0

Many thanks.

2014 Facebook Telegraph:
"Facebook worked with UK groups Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to add 21 new options to ensure the list best reflected the ways UK users may choose to describe themselves.

"Gender identities are complex and for many people, describing themselves as just a man or just a woman has always been inadequate," said Professor Stephen Whittle, vice-president at Press for Change. The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to develop our gender identity, as key to our personal autonomy.

"By challenging the gender binary, Facebook will finally allow thousands of people to describe themselves as they are now and it will allow future generation of kids to become truly comfortable in their own skins."

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

"By challenging the gender binary, Facebook will finally allow thousands of people to describe themselves as they are now and it will allow future generation of kids to become truly comfortable in their own skins."

But apparently they can only become comfortable in their own skins if they make radical changes to their bodies. That's not what is normally meant by being comfortable in one's own skin.

Why not just let children have any personality and preferences and stop telling them there's something wrong with their bodies if they like the 'wrong' things for their sex?