EA petition EHRC are in favour of reviewing the definition of sex

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Sex Matters update

The petition worked. The full letter from the EHRC is worth reading.

Can anyone more knowledgeable than me explain whether this would need to go to a parliamentary vote? I'm guessing maybe not as it's to do with clarifying existing law? If I've got that wrong and it does, then it will be fascinating to see how Starmer reacts, but I'm also wondering if there would be time to put it to parliament before the general election

What good news

definitely a good news day!

The toys have exited the pram:

https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1643267695020855297?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1643276213752872961?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://twitter.com/mermaidsgender/status/1643290267145887746?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I'd be interested in this, too. But I have a feeling that as this is not just an administrative change, but will change (or clarify) the expressed intention of Parliament it will have to go to the House. Does anyone know?

brilliant

mermaids say the EHRC will be 'redefining sex'. projection much?

How can it happen? IANAL but the petition pointed to s23 of the GRA, which says:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/23

"1)
The Secretary of State may by order make provision for modifying the operation of any enactment or subordinate legislation in relation to—
(a)
persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act, or
(b)
any description of such persons.
(2)
The power conferred by subsection (1) is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers (rather than the Secretary of State) where the provision to be made is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
(3)
The appropriate Northern Ireland department may by order make provision for modifying the operation of any enactment or subordinate legislation which deals with a transferred matter in relation to—
(a)
persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act, or
(b)
any description of such persons.
(4)
In subsection (3)—
“the appropriate Northern Ireland department”, in relation to any enactment or subordinate legislation which deals with a transferred matter, means the Northern Ireland department which has responsibility for that matter,
“deals with” is to be construed in accordance with section 98(2) and (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47), and
“transferred matter” has the meaning given by section 4(1) of that Act.
(5)
Before an order is made under this section, appropriate consultation must be undertaken with persons likely to be affected by it."

No idea what lies within the EQA without reading it. And it's time.

To add to PPs asking about parliamentary process, how does this affect the Haldane judgement in Scotland? IANAL so I paraphrase Haldane as 'biological sex is so.etimes important but most of the time it can means what the hell you like it to mean'.

Ah. The Sex Matters proposal:

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1643269033846767616?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Briefing-for-MPs-on-the-Equality-Act-amendment.pdf

"What could an amendment look like?

(X) In this Act, references to female persons and women:

(a) also refer to a person who was born female and has acquired the male sex under the GRA 2004 (b) do not refer to a person who was born male and has acquired the female sex under that Act.
(X) In this Act, references to male persons and men:

(a) also refer to a person who was born male and has acquired the female sex under the GRA 2004 (b) do not refer to a person who was born female and has acquired the male sex under that Act."

@ResisterRex thanks that's a useful post

Another toy exits, on the grounds that this is the result of a "few individuals". Perhaps 107,539 identifies as such. Who knew?

twitter.com/genderintell/status/1643302313686097928?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

It wasn't "poorly written in the first place" because nobody had their "alternative definitions" of sex at the time.

And it's not a review or a redefinition, it's just clarifying what it was always intended to mean.

It wasn't "poorly written in the first place" because nobody had their "alternative definitions" of sex at the time.

And it's not a review or a redefinition, it's just clarifying what it was always intended to mean.

Quite. If someone decides that there are personal feelings about colours and shapes and that the words refer to the feelings, that doesn't mean the Highway Code was badly written because it didn't think to specify that a stop light is "optical red" or that a give way sign is a "geometric triangle".

We have no way of knowing whether people see the same colour anyway so shouldn't it be down to a personal preference 🤔

IA absolutely NAL, but if a new criterion, legal sex, in competition with "biological sex" has been created by the Haldane judgement then we have a new situation which was not foreseen by Parliament when the EA 2010 was passed. My understanding is that it's what the law actually says as interpreted by those courts which have power to set precedents that counts. Not any commonly believed intentions of Parliament which can only be speculation. I think they may have to go back to Parliament.

Legal Feminist:

'Excellent news'

https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1643256775234265089?cxt=HHwWgoC9qZXVgs4tAAAA

Michael Foran

'A significant intervention from the EHRC on the definition of ‘sex’ within the Equality Act.'

https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1643277467409317892

This is massive if it goes through. Confirming the accurate definition of sex in law which ensures that all women's hard fought for protections are legal.

That frees up the privileged wealthy trans organisations to lobby for & fund 3rd spaces - and we'll all be in support of them.

"Laughable"

https://twitter.com/moirarobin/status/1643315530995048450?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

<Shrug>

Either women as a sex class get their necessary equality and protections back alongside protections for male people with TQ+ identities, or the GRA is going to have to go.

Pick one.

ResisterRex · Today 15:16
🍿, anyone?

Yes, but I’ll tentatively just take a few pieces of popcorn.

I feel a bit disconcerted by one of the paragraph in the EHRC letter that seems to show that the EHRC, not just Lady Haldane, always took the view that sex in the Equality Act could be seen as something non-biological/equalled by fictional GRC sex.

It was surely originally the intention of the EA, at the time it was made, that the allowed exceptions to sex discrimination in the act were biologically based. The definitions male and female were definitions of biological states in any dictionary.

At least some knowledgeable people thought Lady Haldane’s judgement last winter could be challenged.

So I am wondering if the EHRC has been issuing advice over the years that has caused a lot of the damage in the first place?

But it is very, very good news that they seem to want this clarity about the meaning of sex now.

ResisterRex · Today 19:56
"Laughable"

https://twitter.com/moirarobin/status/1643315530995048450?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Fortunately there is no time for this in the remainder of the legislative programme of the present government. Then they will be gone.

That has let’s us know, by the way, how confident some people like this transgender lawyer must be, that Labour will make absolutely sure women’s rights will be lost in favour of allowing men who say they are women to push women out existence as a sex class.

Robin’s the anti-Tinkerbell: every time they tweet another Labour party member tears up their membership card. Talk about an own goal.

This is the paragraph I don't understand:

• Equal pay provisions. At present, a trans woman with a GRC can bring an equal pay claim by citing a legally male comparator who was paid more. A trans man with a GRC could not. The proposed biological definition would reverse this situation. The effect would be to transfer this right from some trans women to some trans men.

Is there actually a typo or something in that paragraph? Does it make sense to everyone else?

It looks the ok to me - it is saying that atm a TM with a GRC can bring a claim in the same way as a woman. But a TM can't in the same way as a man can't.

At least that is what I see.