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

J: Templeman L in the judgment, had anyone acted on the basis of the guidance there, do you know?
12:46 pm · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
1
Retweet
1
Quote Tweet
10
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
9s
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
R: in terms of clear errors of law, in that case there was a fundamental misconception.

In our summary grounds of resistance, we argue that you have to balance detriments to trans people & other service users.

Provided it's lawful to have a single-sex service at all, is it lawful to exclude trans people from it?
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
8s
We say there is no distinction between trans people with a GRC and without a GRC.

J: it's not open to the Commissions to make provisions of its own accord, but I got the sense it was making provisions?

Indeed.

It is correct that a trans person defined as having GR protection is one with a GRC. Both parties accept this.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
6s
Many trans people without a GRC may live in their acquired gender nonetheless.

We say there is no distinction between trans people with a GRC and without a GRC.

Then repeal the GRA.

@thepuredrop

We say there is no distinction between trans people with a GRC and without a GRC.

Then repeal the GRA.

Exactly what I was thinking.

me too

We say there is no distinction between trans people with a GRC and without a GRC.

I think we're all in agreement. Now they just need to complete that thought.

can anyone take over live tweets? (I've got an appointment)
twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1390272982065483782

8s
We say there is no distinction between trans people with a GRC and without a GRC.

So basically any male can access women’s spaces and services, so long as he claims the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which requires no medical treatment and no changes in presentation)? Is that what the EHRC just said? 😮😡

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
8s
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
J: there is carve-out for people with a GRC?

R: that would always be justified.

J: Parliament would presumably say that.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
7s
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
R: it recognises that you can have separate- & single-sex services, but GR is a separate question.

We say there is no distinction between trans people with a GRC and without a GRC.
Nor any difference between someone proposing to undergo or having changed physiological or other attributes of sex.

The logic therefore is to repeal the GRA and stop conflating and confusing sex and gender identity.

R: it recognises that you can have separate- & single-sex services, but GR is a separate question.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
58s
Separate changing rooms, as an example, or a women's refuge. Joint services are less effective, therefore single-sex are justified.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
17s
It's unsurprising that you have a separate section re GR, because you can have a men's refuge or a women's refuge, but then must ask whether it's justified to exclude transwomen from a women's refuge.

I'm about to stop live tweeting. if anyone wants to take over it's here [[https://twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1390274622600458246 ]]

So basically any male can access women’s spaces and services, so long as he claims the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which requires no medical treatment and no changes in presentation)? Is that what the EHRC just said?

Yes if he is "proposing to undergo" then presumably EHRC considers he has same rights as a male TS with GRC who has undertaken surgeries etc

I agree with EHRC in that, in my opinion, neither should have rights to female single sex spaces and services.

It's consistent with the statutory scheme that GR discrimination must be satisfied. Excluding a transwomen from women's changing rooms would be direct GR discrimination.
12:59 pm · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
5
Quote Tweets
7
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
19s
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
You can't justify excluding transwomen from women's single-sex spaces. If your policy or practice is that only those female at birth are allowed in, this substantially disadvantages trans persons, therefore it requires justification.

Thanks for the sterling work FindTheTruth

If your policy or practice is that only those female at birth are allowed in, this substantially disadvantages trans persons, therefore it requires justification

And fuck what those 'female at birth' things think or feel about it, eh

thanks for tweeting so far @FindTheTruth, I’m unable to take over as I keep being directed to a log in page.

You can't justify excluding transwomen from women's single-sex spaces. If your policy or practice is that only those female at birth are allowed in, this substantially disadvantages trans persons, therefore it requires justification.

There is only female at birth, there are no other kinds of females! Really, if you have to talk rubbish to make a point, it's a rubbish point.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
3m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
You have to justify the trans-exclusionary practice or policy under s.19(2)(d).
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
30s
R: It’s likely to be justified to exclude both TW with and without GRCs.

then must ask whether it's justified to exclude transwomen from a women's refuge

But they also just argued that there is no distinction between trans people with and without a GRC.

And any man can easily claim he is “proposing to undergo a process of gender reassignment.”

So then you can’t have a women’s refuge.

I know this is obvious to everyone here, it’s one of the most head-thwackingly obvious contradictions at the heart of the gender agenda. It sounds like the EHRC’s lawyers might be making it obvious to the judge too? I hope.

J: we will resume at 2pm.

It's consistent with the statutory scheme that GR discrimination must be satisfied. Excluding a transwomen from women's changing rooms would be direct GR discrimination.
You can't justify excluding transwomen from women's single-sex spaces. If your policy or practice is that only those female at birth are allowed in, this substantially disadvantages trans persons, therefore it requires justification.

And to reiterate TW in this case means a male person of any age,
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.

phew. back at 2.

I think it's even clearer than ever that we must repeal the GRA