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

How about looking at the women who self ID as men who may be strip-searched by male officers if gender identity is the key element

Or is the Committee proposing that mens self ID is to result in a woman doing the search but a women self ID is to be ignored?

Sigh.... are they thinking that through both sexes?

This is exactly the point because the committee seems got at by the TRAS.

I know what you mean - I suspect their point was supposed to be “and look what happens when people follow your terrible guidance”, whereas the reaction of most sensible people will be “yes, what happens is the law is followed and women are protected”.

Dont forget this version of the WEC is dominated by Labour trans allies.

Just as the WEC that was also TRA dominated set in motion as its premier concern was to bring in self id. The very motion that got so many women aware of what was happening and through FWR (and others) submitted responses to that.

It isn't at all surprising that they would make trans people their priority.

And nice as it is that the Tories gave their one seat to Rosie Duffield its not as though she as a lone voice can change anything.

But that is the reality of the Labour Government in 2025. They have not changed their mentality which actually created the problem by say the GRA had priority over the protected characteristic of sex.

Labour must be so angry that their devious attempt to try and get TW being the same a biological women legal, has been overturned by Judges who deal with reality not some queer theory about sex and gender.

Dont forget the forthcoming Parliament discussion in response to a petition asking for self ID. Wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour doesn't take this up just because they are so opposed to what the Supreme Court has done.

And I suspect in writing to the EHRC they are using the social campaing Stonewall version of trans. ie anybody who says they are, not the legal definition of trans being a GRC. They are so pumped up with their pious self righteousness that what they have written propably isn't even legal as they have failed (probalby deliberately) to define what they mean by trans.

If anyone thought is worthwhile it might do they a bit of good to get letters or email asking what they are talking about, and how disappointing the a committee whose primary focus in women has not concentrated on how the Court ruling could improve women's lives and women's safety.

I watched the SC hearing and the judgement, and i read the 88 page ruling.

It really does not matter one bit what the handmaidens committee write to the EHRC.

It does not matter one bit about the hue and cry of the TRA’s, and all the silly arguments they are coming up with.

(you know we might be fearful of lesbians in our spaces, how it going to be policed, what if they pass bla bla bla.)

What matters is what the law says. And it is clear as fucking day and night.

Men, (and women) with a certificate remain as a matter of fact the sex that they were born with, they just cannot be discriminated against because of their appearance.

if the door says woman then man cannot go in it.

(that reinstates the offences of vouyerism and indecent exposure)

if the group says lesbian then men cannot go in to it.

If you have no female facilities in a pub or a leisure centre then that is sex discrimination.

The ruling even states, there might be occasion where a woman who, goes out of her way to look like a man may be lawfully excluded from female spaces. If it would cause alarm and distress. (I have no boo hoos about that)

labour have no appetite to change the law by legislation, and IMHO the general public are you know, WTF.

Its going to take time to snap back to normal thinking, and i have not put my purse away just yet.

but it is GAME OVER.

There is a GI activist on another thread currently trying to argue that words have varied meanings and interpretations of them can be varied, and that somehow this definitely means that the wording of the judgment doesn't equal men not being biological women, and single sex spaces for women doesn't equal men not being able to use them.

This is a belief system that focuses on celebrating and living within alternative personal realities and feelings creating reality, not facts. It would be possible to live with this in society if there were clear, firm boundaries to protect others, but Labour et al appear to be busy fucking that up as fast as possible.

Just here to add to the chorus of WTFs at 'overly literal'.

It's the law. The literal words on the literal page are literally the literal fucking law. That's literally the point!

There is a GI activist on another thread currently trying to argue that words have varied meanings and interpretations of them can be varied,

And on another thread one is arguing that two people having two totally different things is them sharing something.

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

What about the women police officers right not to be forced to search males?

I would like to think that the UK’s equalities watchdog sends them a copy of the SC's judgement and says here it's all very clearly written, you don't need clarification you just need to read it, or get a 6 year old to read it to you.

Is there a record of this committee raising these concerns re; female police officers and women?

I think these policies have been in the news since July 2024.

I discussed this with TW friend and TWF was enraged about TW being searched by male police officers, because they can't be trusted not to sexually assault the suspect.

🤔

English law (UK law) works on the principle of reasonableness and average person.

This where picking at 'biological sex' falls down. What is does the average person reasonably understand by biological sex? You could in theory call this the 'Trump Level Language' barrier - Trump talks at the literacy level of an 9 year old and it's understood by even those with lower literacy levels.

This is interesting when you consider it's the Word Salad Crew trying to seize control of the law really fall down. They don't fit this reasonableness test. They fail it completely.

Strip searching needs to be be by consent of the person and the searcher wrt sex.

Default is biological sex.

If a transwoman wants to be searched by a 'woman' they can wait until a transwoman police officer is available, even if that means they have to stay in custody until one is brought in from another area. Problem solved.

Well if that happens? they need to lodge a complaint against the officers involved, they have the 'right' to do so, so let them exercise the right's they do have, instead of stealing women's rights.

Indeed, and you can apply much the same argument to those poor unfortunate individuals who cannot go the the prison of their choice.

True, but that's not what got me sucking my teeth. It was the way it didn't occur to him that a woman would have exactly the same problem only more so (being half his size).

There are an awful lot of people who are incapable of considering anyone else but themselves.

The women’s and equality commission is stuffed full of trans-supporters because Starmer has allowed it to be. He has also allowed the data bill to go through. He may now realise that he can’t say ‘some women have penises’ but he either doesn’t understand, or chooses not to understand the implications.

Starmer was clear before the election that he is not on our side, he still isn’t

Starmer is just trying to avoid the subject and has taken the route of least resistance rather than having a masterplan against women. I think this is effectively backfiring at this point as it's making for some v difficult scenarios that Starmer is finding harder and harder to dodge with every new legal clarification that women are indeed not men.

When women have been concerned about the possibility of sexual assault, I seem to remember the reply was that she can complain to the police and her assaulted will be dealt with.

it wasn’t a good answer then, and it isn’t now, but interesting nevertheless

Yes, I think you’re right. So I guess the answer is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for him to trample women’s rights…..

Yep.

Not sue if it's been linked to before, but I just read Sex Matters' typically forensic take-down of the lazy arguments used in the HoC debate by Bryant and others.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/inaccurate-sex-data-excuses-and-bad-arguments/?mc_cid=f812fbed59

A couple of excerpts:

Note that Excuse 1 (don’t worry, we are already acting on the Sullivan Review and fixing bad sex data) and Excuse 5 (we can’t fix bad data because doing so would interfere with trans rights) are contradictory.

It is worth noting that John Edwards, the Information Commissioner (that is, the regulator with the responsibility for securing compliance with the data-protection laws), is personally committed to the transactivist position that transgender people should be allowed to self-identify as the opposite sex. He has publicly declared that his daughter is a boy. He quotes his child as saying that the accurate recording of sex data “makes me feel afraid and invalidated”, and has cited this as a reason sex shouldn’t be recorded accurately.

Who's on the committee?

It’s not just the current government. This has been going on for 20+ years.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/membership/