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

So it’s really employers and service providers they’re consulting, not randoms off the street?

The barrister is called ‘Robin Moira White’ and here is the BBC Sounds link to Mondays Woman’s Hour:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002c2c9?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I hope the link works - the segment starts 15 minutes in.

I think this could be a tactic to spin things out as long as possible, bearing in mind summer recess and that KF is due to step down during the autumn sitting. If they play their cards right, she could run out of road before the guidance is settled, and/or be 'encouraged' to hand over early. And to whom? Starmer won't want a by-election, and probably still thinks no-one cares about this, apart from TRAs (including his own MPs and civil servants).

The EHRC guidance will make no difference to UK law.

This extension is to enable organisations to be clear about the practical implications of the supreme court ruling; it is in no way meant to debate the ruling.

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1922695211680924101/photo/1

Text of post for reference:

Please note the extended consultation timeframe for the EHRC's statutory Code of Practice for Services. Also note this isn't the Employment Code of Practice. It won't be directly relevant to the application of the Supreme Court judgment in workplaces.

I interpret this as meaning workplaces who are "waiting on EHRC Guidance" do not need to wait as it won't apply to them.

Am I wrong?

I'd expect the consultation will be drowned in responses, about 95% of which can be discarded as soon as read because it's not about waaaaah rage rage you bastards, it's an actual purposeful thing.

Yes, the stalling is disgusting.

But then it was summed up by the infantile comment on that thread to the effect of 'you should be sacked because you don't care about trans people' - by following the law and not destroying women's rights on the spot in some apparent 'gesture' that would be illegal, unethical and wholly immoral. This is the level of nonsense the EHRC are dealing with.

Rage that women (and gay people) have rights.

Oh I like that interpretation, if it's true then all the companies, organisations etc who have been dragging their feet, now have nothing to hide behind.

They don't need to wait, it's time to get on with it, so do the right and legal thing, already.

Why do we even need this? The law is perfectly clear.
Do we need "guidance" to follow any other laws?
Ridiculous!

It gives time for a cushioning effect, to soften the blow to the various EDI departments, and to start planning for how they are going to practically implement the ruling. I'm imagining it will be like a Q&A session - so that everyone is clear.

The SC ruling is clear and the interim guidance is seems good to me on how service providers should meet their obligations to women. I think one area the guidance is a bit light on is what accommodations should or could be provided to people with gender reassignment so they aren’t discriminated against.

For the last decade+ providers have mainly been doing this illegally by impinging on women’s spaces and provision and the SC ruling is very clear that they can’t do this any more. But that means there’s a decade of illegal practice that needs to be replaced with something legal. I suspect service providers are wanting guidance on when they can just say - oh use the appropriate sex service - and when they need to provide something different for trans individuals (and are probably hoping for inexpensive ideas on how trans specific services could be provided as they haven’t spent any time really thinking about that).

Why is everyone here so angry? We won guys. Trans is over!!!

Nice try love. Why don't you hang around and read what the women here are actually saying? You might learn something.

MistyGreenAndBlue · Yesterday 19:49

Why do we even need this? The law is perfectly clear.
Do we need "guidance" to follow any other laws?
Ridiculous!

Because, unfortunately, the Tralalas have had a collective hissy fit and muddied the waters; or at least tried to.

They won't be happy with 6 weeks, either, or 6 months, or 6 years.

?????? What

“This is, understandably, a fairly inclusive workplace and quite a few staff have trans friends or even partners. They suddenly had to try and explain this guidance which made no sense.

“The pushback has been really strong. Some stakeholders are saying they can no longer work with us. Loads of staff say they’re looking for other jobs. The approach from the chair and senior leadership has been really secretive and paranoid.”

Quite concerning that the personal lives of the employees of the EHRC have such influence on their work (especially given that their views are not representative of the population). Surely their job is to uphold the law and provide guidance for stakeholders to do the same, not manipulate the law to please themselves/friends/families. I can see why the senior leadership are secretive and paranoid if this is their staffs attitude tbh.

It is frustrating for stakeholders that they have been misled by a Stonewall generated false interpretation of the law. But that's what this is, a misinterpretation of the law that now needs to be corrected. It's not going to be quick or easy to do that but it has to happen unless the law is changed either through a change to the legislation (unlikely) or a successful challenge to the Supreme Court judgement (vanishingly unlikely).

Could any of the guidance make a suggestion about the problems of listening to groups like Stonewall?

The EHCR will have identified who is behind the misrepresentation of the equality act. Can they act on that knowledge, does anyone know?

Because the propaganda really needs cutting off at the source.

Gosh, I can’t imagine why the senior leadership are being secretive when their own staff are briefing against them and the organisation in the media. I thought civil servants were bound by a code of practice. Is this even allowed?

@MistyGreenAndBlue

Yes it is normal for legislation to be accompanied by guidance or regulations. A lot of legislation is convoluted so having a clear version for non-lawyers can provide clarity.

In a clear readable judgement like this one it may not seem necessary but for organisations it might be helpful to have a handy guide on the main situations they’ll have to deal with.

Organisations will not always proceed without such guidance.

Even if it isn't supposed to be allowed I'd assume that the employee(s) in question fully believe they are fighting facism and therefore shouldn't follow the rules (or indeed the law).

Organisations will not always proceed without guidance.

Really?

I don’t buy that given what Akua Reindorf has been posting on TwiX and also her article, where she says:

Employers, service providers, sporting bodies and other duty-bearers under the Equality Act should urgently review their policies and practices, using reliable specialist advice that does not emanate solely from interested lobby groups.

https://archive.ph/kmLQW

💯

It will never ever be over. Throughout history men have continually tried to create and exploit loopholes that allow them to abuse females. They will never stop trying.

Exactly. End of discussion.