Guardian (again): Gaby Hinsliff on Women and Equalities Select Committee/EHRC

[LittleBitofBread]

They're at it again.
Falkner 'effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead', apparently.
Deliberate baiting: mentioning but not detailing (I wonder why?) the idea of 'masculine-looking women' being frightening to women in women's spaces.
Presenting the notion that trans people should 'only' play in sports teams of their birth sex (what does she think everyone else does?)
Mention of women who might want men in their groups, their boundaries and 'what feels right to them' but no consideration of the boundaries and feelings of women who might not.
Careful to make clear (again…) that Falkner was appointed by Liz Truss.
States that trans women are not 'quite the same as biological women' (my bold)
States that a legacy of placards reading 'the only good Terf is a dead Terf' and bottles of urine left on her office doorstep by TRAs is that 'many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights', but glancing mention only of Falkner's own feelings about it, and heavy implication that she has taken her stance on the ruling out of a desire for vindication.

I feel like I say this every day, but I'm fucking sick of it.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/12/politicians-regulators-supreme-court-gender-ruling

So exasperating to read this. As Falkner herself said, don't shoot the messenger - if you don't like the Supreme Court ruling, question the judges, not her.

Also, Hinsliff pretends that it's all terribly confusing and complicated when it isn't - it's really simple and straightforward, and it's all there in the Equality Act of 2010.

Really annoying that she doesn't point out that much of the confusion in the room was down to the fact that most of the MPs, including the chair, clearly hadn't read the judgement, so spent their time asking stupid questions that demonstrated their own ignorance.

It's all making me wonder about the syntax of "women and equalities" like they're two separate concepts. Certainly seems that way.

Why was there not one single person in that grilling of BF who had a different point of view? Why would a woman be scared of a masculine-presenting woman in their spaces? It's like they don't understand that it's not male features that are the problem, it's males that are the problem. Why does leaving bottles of urine on her doorstep make her give TRAs more consideration than the polite women putting forward the women's side here? So many questions.

Not happy with the way your society is run democratically and with the rule of law? Have a penis? Just piss in a bottle and dump it somewhere prominent to make your point! That's a valid and articulate way of participating in democracy now. 🤬

Why was there not one single person in that grilling of BF who had a different point of view?

There were two. Rosie Duffield (Independent) and Rebecca Paul (Conservative). The rest were Labour and LibDems who repeated TRA talking points as though they'd been programmed to do so, and hadn't read (or hadn't understood) the judgment.

Lol so Hinsliff didn’t really believe the article she wrote the other day at all. It’s all pretence, guardian still doesn’t understand why women just won’t let men do what they like!!

I notice today the TRA are wanging on
again in
tje guardian about extending the consultation period. They still think if it’s just extended and extended eventually somone will go “oh ok everone can just ignore the law to make you happy”. They really are like bloody toddlers

My thanks to Rosie Duffield and Rebecca Paul who came across as knowledgeable, articulate and polite at all times.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

We could respond here but I’m not sure they’d print

Oh god of course they were. 🤦‍♀️ Thanks. I am dealing with toddler D+V, haven't slept in 2 days, and am getting in a muddle. I'm still pissed off about how BF was treated though it was appalling.

"Suppose you wanted to start a women’s walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you’d be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued."

I don't think they discussed whether the group could be for people who had a female gender identity (not sex specific, so including men and women), but if you include trans women the group is mixed sex.

Even if you believe in gendered souls, if sex and gender are synonymous in law, there is no way to exclude somebody because you don't think their soul is the correct gender. You can only take their word for it. This is why the SC decided as they did.

The Guardian are doing their readers a disservice. Even if they think Michael Foran is biased, a good journalist would read what he has written.

Unfortunately, I think 'doesn't make sense' here means 'I didn't do my homework'.

Confusion is good news for Jolyon Maugham's fund raising though.

The idiot Chair didn’t even understand the full scope of the ruling.

Falkner 'effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead', apparently.

Female toilets are not supposed to be inclusive of male people.

The female prison estate is not supposed to be inclusive of male offenders.

Female rape crisis groups are not supposed to be inclusive of male victims.

Female sports are not supposed to be inclusive of male athletes.

And repeat.

Fortunately, the word inclusion and inclusiveness is becoming recognised for what it is. They're gonna have to come up with something different.

She’s a collaborator at this point IMO, selling out women’s rights for that US dollar.

GH is just terrible. But, given that the decent journalists have jumped ship, it's an indication of all that the Guardian have left.

"Though Falkner suggested it would be “wise for space to be given to the regulator” to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view."

Some maybe but I would wager they are outnumbered ten to one by those who perfectly happy for the regulator to get on with their job. Firstly because that is the regulator's job and secondly because they are more than happy to sit on the fence.

I've written already this week, to them about the defamatory material they published about Akua Reindorf, and to the Observer about the Munroe Bergdorf interview.
I just know my emails are printed out and pinned on the office dartboard