Is the ERHC going to cave in to trans demands?

[Arran2024]

Worrying development https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/14/uk-equality-watchdog-to-extend-gender-guidance-consultation-say-insiders?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I think it's fine for them to extend the deadline to 6 weeks. Two weeks was far too short.

There was always going to be an enormous amount of pressure on the EHRC following the Supreme Court ruling from both sides.

The law is crystal clear though. A GRC does not make someone the opposite sex and female facilities are for females only.

I do think they will need to clarify the part that is giving the most concern, and leading some to interpret it that transmen will not be allowed to use either male or female facilities.

Have FWR mners been responding to this? I feel I should but it passed me by

I think extending the consultation period is sensible - it means that TRA can’t claim “it was all too short/we had no time”

im sure they’re under huge pressure internally and externally but the law is the law

The EHRC cannot change the law, whatever their final guidance is, it will fully support the SC judgement because they cannot change what the judges said and they cannot change the equality act.
Nothing to worry about.

I don't think you can respond. The Guardian headline says it's a consultation but it can't be. You can't consult on whether or not to obey the law.

Oh for heavens sakes the writer of the article is an idiot agree with previous posters, nothing to worry about.//

It hasn’t started yet, but due to any day.

Quite. I assume this is a case of the Guardian being up to its usual tricks.

"Some insiders believe the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) may be forced into a U-turn on its initial response, which was criticised as overly literal in defining how organisations should respond to the court decision that “woman” in the Equality Act refers only to a biological woman."

I mean, JFC! How can you be "overly literal" in interpreting a ruling that was crystal clear in its wording? Why would you be anything less than literal? The utter stupidity is enraging.

I know!! I’m frustrated by seeing supposedly educated people in the public sphere such as journalists, CEOs and politicians behaving as though the Supreme Court ruling is just a vibe or a suggestion to be ignored if one doesn’t like it, rather than the actual feckin law of the land 😩

It’s like all these supposedly serious people have their fingers crossed hoping that the EHRC will somehow produce guidance with wiggle room, or loopholes, or entirely ignoring the SC ruling altogether and then they won’t have to stand up to their staff and obey the law 🙄

There is huge pressure on the ERHC to water down its guidelines. We can't be sure they won't - loads of people trying to find different interpretations of the law like this https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1922649569243849113

Not just the Guardian.

Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour had a ‘trans woman’ barrister on their programme on Monday - who sounded totally like a man - who was given a very easy ride by (I think) Nuala McGovern.

I think the trans community is going to fight this tooth and nail and insist on using women’s single sex spaces.

Great thanks

They are just extending guidance consultation, probably because people who don't like the clarity are having a hissy fit. By extending the time it stops any 'you didn't consider it enough' claims down the line.

People can try and pretend they don't understand the law as much as they like but at the end of the day the law is clear and is the law as clarified by the Supreme Court. It's like claiming shoplifting is okay if you've left your purse at home and pretending you thought it was okay to steal because a random who claimed to be a legal expert told you it was.

I am surprised that it’s out for consultation, surely the law is the law, if anything is unclear it should be referred back to the Supreme Court to clarify.

The judgment is very easy to understand.

The hope is that the EHRC can be forced into pretending that the judgment doens't say what it says.

Their advice would then not be compliant with the law.

It's quite simple. Regardless of how much men wangle to try and get into women's spaces against women's consent and interests, it's illegal.

And if neccessary, and the EHRC is compromised by stupidity and bullying by those who hate women, it will go to case law. Where the law and not the advice will be adhered to. Which will prove that fucking up the judgment clarity was pointless and unhelpful.

Verucca Salt wants Daddy to buy that pony RIGHT NOW. And it's long past time Daddy did some parenting.

Hue and cry is to be expected to be honest which i think the more the better, because it just raises awareness with the general public.

“Slightly sadistically” i am kinda enjoying all the huffs and puffs and DAVROS given the misery that women have been put through.

And all the daftest of daft arguments, debates and erm threats of legal challenges.

It is a bit like a monster in its death throws not going quietly.

If necessary I'm sure Sex Matters will be on it. The EHRC cannot make the law say something other than it does: that men really don't want women to have rights isn't going to cut it. Nor is identifying that words might mean other things if you squint and cross your fingers behind your back.

But yes, I could well believe at the moment with a fantastically weak government that has a massive misogyny problem of its own, and the appalling behaviour of this insane lobby, that this may be a long and circumvented process to get the law followed.

It's absolutely disgusting. They just want to bend reality to fit what they want and don't care who gets hurt.

The EHRC cannot change UK law.

It's as simple as that.

That is probably the best summary of the entire political movement I've ever read in one sentence.

Aiming to launch on May 19 (@EasternStandard )

Update on arrangements for Code of Practice consultation | EHRC

Thanks @Leafstamp

It seems pretty clear:

"The Supreme Court made the legal position on the definition of sex clear, so the EHRC is not seeking views on those legal aspects."

'The consultation will seek views on whether these updates clearly articulate the practical implications of the judgment and enable those who will use the Code to understand, and comply with, the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court made the legal position on the definition of sex clear, so the EHRC is not seeking views on those legal aspects.'

The SC ruling gives very little wiggle room if any. Biological sex remains the deciding factor. In practice it would be difficult to police in shops/pubs etc. unless we have a US style bathroom bill making it an instant offence for a male to enter a female space, just like shoplifting or not wearing a seatbelt. That would be for government not EHRC.