We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition - EHRC

[IwantToRetire]

“The central issue raised by this appeal is how ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are defined in the Equality Act 2010.

“On that point, our position is that when Parliament passed the Equality Act, it intended those who have acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to be treated as their certified sex. So a trans woman with a GRC is legally recognised as a woman under the Equality Act, and a trans man with a GRC is legally recognised as a man.

“We look forward to the Supreme Court’s judgment providing an authoritative interpretation of the existing law in this area.”

“We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition.

“It creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people. These difficulties include the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single sex spaces, and in the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations. We think clarity is important to everybody affected by these issues properly understanding and exercising their rights.

“It is unlikely that Parliament appreciated these consequences when it passed the Equality Act, and they have become more serious with societal change since that time.

“As the equality regulator, we deem this to be a wholly unsatisfactory situation, which Parliament should address with urgency.

“In April last year we provided advice on clarifying the definition of ‘sex’, in response to a request from the then Minister for Women and Equalities. It is our view that the arguments at the heart of this case once again highlight the importance of Parliament giving careful consideration to amending the Equality Act 2010 and the current balance of rights under the Act.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-intervention-women-scotland-supreme-court-appeal

(This is in relation to forthcoming FWS court case, but thought as it is a statment from the EHRC, those not on that thread would be interested to read this. But always find it strange that all these people making all these statements never refer to why the SSE were written, ie because they did intend those with a GRC to be taken as being "legally" the other sex.)

Here is Julie Bindel's take on it, a bit slimmed down, I suppose for people who don't know much about it - so as not to put them off with a long article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14125393/JULIE-BINDEL-Today-sex-risks-obliterated.html

Surely the basic problem is that the GRA requires people to pretend to believe something they know to be untrue. Anything built on a lie is going to be shaky. Parliament might as well pass a law to raise people from the dead.

Credit to the BBC (I know!!!), that article on the Scotland pages is well written, and I have shared it with friends, including a retired social worker and ex-nurse / trainer who have both been a bit flaky on this matter so far.

Whatever the result from the Supreme Court, it will shed an amazing amount of sunlight as people wake up to the mess that Parliament created (either intentionally or unintentionally).

I am hopeful that more clarity will be forthcoming ... but a bit uneasy about what that will mean in reality.

This is no time to relax. Please keep up the pressure wims of FWR! 🙏

The crux of the problem in a nutshell.

To be fair, there are people who genuinely believe that everyone has a gender identity. But enforcing it as legally true and legally relevant - more relevant questions than actual biological sex - is ridiculous.

Oops. Typo.

Not sure how the word "questions" got in to my comment above.

I've just read the Julie Bindel article. It's good but I don't think it'll draw in casual readers because explaining why the average person should care isn't until much further down the article. Lots of people will have switched off by then.

I say this as someone who thought this stuff was just noise myself. Even after I first started getting concerned about my daughter confusing her autism-related puberty distress with gender identity. It took me ages to figure out that JKR wasn't just off on some weird rant. I had already read comments on trans people and didn't think they were transphobic but I thought she was making a lot of fuss over nothing re the word "woman".....

Yes, yes, I know 🤦‍♀️

Surely the basic problem is that the GRA requires people to pretend to believe something they know to be untrue. Anything built on a lie is going to be shaky. Parliament might as well pass a law to raise people from the dead.

I agree.

And yet, it seems most countries have an equivalent of the GRA. That's one hell of a lot of 'stepping back' required.

I believe it actually says “for all purposes” and then immediately lists purposes for which it does NOT apply including maternity - still legally the person who gives birth - & inheritance of titles.

Which is confusing wording to say the least.