Hoc Women and Equalities Select Committee want more time for EHRC consultation

[MyrtleLion]

I'm bloody furious that the House of Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee have written "to the UK’s equalities watchdog to seek assurances that its guidance on how organisations interpret the landmark supreme court ruling on gender issues does not ignore the needs of transgender people.".

What about women's rights?

"The letter, sent on behalf of the whole committee, asks Falkner to give information on a number of points, including: “What steps the EHRC will be taking to ensure that the code of practice is supportive of the rights of all people (as noted in the supreme court judgment)."
"It also asks “whether the code of practice will clarify rights of trans people, for example around strip-searching by police officers?”

How about the women officers searching these men when we know the men will get a sexual thrill out of it?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/08/mps-seek-assurances-from-uk-equalities-watchdog-over-gender-ruling

subservient numpties

lol yeah I bet they do fucking transmaidens

Fucking hell, how is it so hard to consider 51% of the population who also deserve protections in law.

It's as if trans is the most important. This is supposed to be the Women's Committee! They want more consultation time as if the SC ruling and interim statutory guidance don't matter.

Not to mention those demands are not in the remit or the power of the EHRC. The guidance will only be as supportive as the actual law.

And they might regret asking the EHRC to clarify the law around strip-searching because Code C says explicitly that searches must be carried out by police officers of the same sex as the detainee
and Annex L of PACE Code C says that PACE code C searches must be compliant with the Equality Act 2010.

Cowards.

It is not the EHRC's job to change legislation.

"It also asks “whether the code of practice will clarify rights of trans people, for example around strip-searching by police officers?”

How about if you don't want to be searched by someone of the same sex as you, you make a really really big effort not to commit crimes? Just an idea.

I don't want anyone to feel they've been assaulted, but seriously - where was this committee when the police were making it clear they'd insist women had to be strip searched by men who had interesting identities? What did they care at that point?

I am sickened by the absolute abandonment of women by the government. So long as trans identified men are happy, apparently nothing else matters.

It follows concern from transgender activists and a number of MPs that Lady Falkner and her organisation have thus far taken an overly literal approach to last month’s supreme court decision, which ruled that “woman” in the Equality Act refers only to a biological woman.

Presumably she should take it all with a pinch of salt and continue with the Stonewall interpretation.

They could flip it around and say if you don’t want to be strip searched by a man, don’t commit any crimes women.

Just to reassure people, the actual letter doesn’t have the same bias as the Guardian article, and will hopefully elicit some much needed clarity on timing and what the EHRC is advising on the meantime for all of us.

Personally, I would welcome a longer consultation period to give more women the chance to give their views and to express the many different ways the implementation of the EA affects us.

If the period is extended, then transactivists might make more noise with the same tired talking points, but we will have more time to organise and to articulate all the ways that this issue affects us, as we have the truth on our side and sex is important to us for a far greater number of reasons.

Overly literal.....

ffs, what else do they think that judgment could possibly mean?!

I thought the judgement was fairly comprehensive. Not much room for a creative rather than a literal reading surely.

It's unfortunate that so many people followed Stonewall law and are left in the shit (new schools with mixed sex toilets etc)

And it's unfortunate that TM & TW may only be able to use unisex toilets / changing rooms etc but play silly games win silly prizes etc

This.

If they have a problem with the guidance then they should be referring it back to the HoC to reconsider the current legislation. In other words it's their responsibility to fix any problem they perceive there is and to stop trying to pass the buck so they don't look back and it doesn't affect their reelection prospects.

Ultimately the EHRC is likely to say the same thing - because they can't change their minds, their position is the law - so then what?

They are doing the same as the numpties who tried to undermine the SC. Except they are now trying to undermine the EHRC. Thats not cool.

If they don't like the law, they are MPs. MPs are responsible for writing the law or rewriting the law. It's pretty simple. If they think this is a priority then they can push the government to push this up the agenda and fast track a bill to amend the Equality Act.

This won't happen. We know why it won't happen.

They are all trying to pretend and hope this will go away so they don't have to deal with it. And this has been politics for the last 20years or so - a process of kicking the can down the road long enough so they don't have to deal with it. The problem is you can only do that for so long before you hit a crunch point with reality where the problem becomes a crisis which has to be dealt with and is much bigger than the original problem.

This goes back another name right now. It's name is Reform.

Wait until the women's discrimination cases start coming in... There really is a possibility of a flood gate situation on this if organisations aren't very careful at this point.

They’re complaining about an ‘overly literal’ interpretation of the law?!! Eh???

Mind blowing.

If we’re in some kind of post-legal world now, can I speed with impunity and tell the coppers who pull me over they don’t need to be ‘overly literal’ in their interpretation of the speed limit?

Just to reassure people, the actual letter doesn’t have the same bias as the Guardian article, and will hopefully elicit some much needed clarity on timing and what the EHRC is advising on the meantime for all of us.

But why pick on strip searching as the example? Why not go for trans identified people having to use disabled toilets as discriminating against those who.have disabilities? That would be far more likely to result in people thinking, "ooh that's a good point, what will that mean?".

Yes - activists urging us that biological sex shouldn’t be taken literally was what got us into this mess in the first place!

If they want to queer the SC judgment and argue that the only equitable option is to subvert the authority of the Supreme Court and interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what was actually said, then good luck to them, I guess.

I know it’s already been picked out, but “overly literal?

How on earth can you be overly literal?

Meanings of the word literal from the online Oxford dictionary

1. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration

2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text

3. (of a person or performance) lacking imagination; prosaic

4. of, in, or expressed by a letter or the letters of the alphabet

It can’t be 4) so do we think they want the EHRC to exaggerate (maybe how many privileges they can wedge in for men at women’s expense?

Do they want it not to represent the exact words of the original text too closely?

Or do they want the writer to be imaginative, and imagine rights for people that don’t exist?

Sometimes, I think people are thick as mince. I really wish they were not in charge of important things,

I would imagine strip-searching was chosen because the BTP were one of the first orgs to come out with a definitive policy after the EHRC’s interim guidance was issued, so it’s one of the few areas where someone has announced a policy based on it as opposed to having said “I think we’re just going to wait a while..”.

I’m not saying they don’t feel a certain way about it behind the scenes, just that the letter was far more tempered than the article made it seem.

Thank you. I wasn't commenting on your point, which is valid, but on the example. In a very generalised letter it stood out as odd to use a single example and that one in particular.

I agree. I think that is a very disappointing example because it is so revealing of their mindset.

If they were genuinely concerned with the rights of all people, as they state, then why does their solitary specific example not consider the interplay of women's rights and trans rights in that scenario?

They haven't learned anything. I don't see any recognition in that letter of the importance of protecting women's rights and lesbians' rights, which was critical to the judgment.

We’re going to end up with a Trump moment. I don’t believe that the general public is that fussed about the trans experience, and it’s really not just us on Mumsnet who are fed up to the back teeth with it all.
How long until the next general election?
DH and I have always voted Labour. He voted Tory at the last one, as someone involved w education, that wasn’t an option for me. Well, not last time anyway.

Very much this 👆

Possibly less odd if one comes at it from the point of view of wanting to insist on validation, which of course one should not.

I agree that 'not shafting people with disabilities that mean they need the disabled toilet' would be a much more equality-focused angle. As would 'recognising that it is good there is clarity about not continuing to shaft actual women, even if there is more thought needed about how to deal with people with interesting identities as a result of everyone having fucked this up over the past N years'.