Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Diverse Educators Response to the Supreme Court Judgement

2 replies

Screamingabdabz · 14/05/2025 11:58

These people are an education EDI organisation that have issued this outrageously misleading article and links to more biased content. So depressing that the concerns of girls and women are not considered at all. And even a suggestion that schools defy the ruling:
https://www.diverseeducators.co.uk/supreme-court-ruling-key-information/

Their strapline is ‘where you are celebrated not tolerated’. Not girls and women though it seems.

Supreme Court Ruling – Key Information for Educators | Diverse Educators

There is a lot of misinformation, which is leading to worsening, and at times unlawful, discriminatory language and behaviour.

https://www.diverseeducators.co.uk/supreme-court-ruling-key-information/

OP posts:
Retiredfromthere · 14/05/2025 13:28

One of the resources linked here is to a carefully worded explanation of why the Supreme Court decided as it did, written by a student in what is effectively a student magazine. But a law student and a measured read. It contains this in a couple of places which is something I often come across when talking to people who are not familiar with the PC of gender reassignment.

'Finally, if a trans person is discriminated against or harassed because they are trans, they are still able to bring a claim under section 7 of the 2010 Act, which enshrines “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic. Importantly, no matter whether someone has a GRC is irrelevant to section 7. All trans people are protected by this section, whether or not they have GRCs (most trans people do not). This case had nothing to do with that right.'

I carefully explain that this is not what people think - and just want to check that this is legally correct. What I think is that the discrimination protection in EA2010 is that a anyone can have protection against discrimination regarding their 'gender reassignment' such that they must not be treated differently/less well than someone without that characteristic (gender reassignment). So a man who is going through (or thinking of going through) transition should not be treated less well as a transwoman, in a given context, than a man who is not transitioning (in same context, e.g. employment, housing, etc). The Act is not a protection against transwomen being discriminated against because they are not treated the same as biological women. Is that right? Have I missed something?

The whole article is very carefully worded and really good work. Although obviously sympathetic to the trans cause which is why it is being used. I assume that where a trans person is harassed or discriminated against because they are trans this may be a hate crime, or public disorder or assault, or slander of all manner of other legal breaches but not a case for a claim under the EA2010 Act unless this is discrimination in comparison to someone of the same biological sex. (IANAL and you can probably tell that).

Nameychangington · 14/05/2025 13:46

IANAL but yes you are correct. The Equality Act protects people with the PC of GR from discrimination. It doesn't at all say that people withe the PC of GR should be treated as the opposite sex. Sex and GR are two completely separate PCs. The comparator for a transwoman would be a man who knows he's a man, not a woman.

Michael Foran is good on this, sorry not got time to find something at the moment.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page