Per appointment hearing for new chair of EHRC. This afternoon

[impossibletoday]

If anyone wants to listen/watch

https://x.com/CommonsWEC/status/1939616377750401117?t=MLdkge4QWLoyBv6F2SOSA&s=19

I don't think this is unexpected by anyone. The article even says that Bridget Phillipson is likely to ignore the committees recommendation so I don't think it's a big deal.

It does show how divided the labour party is though. It's weird that they have focussed on race and lack of experience leading big organisations when everyone knows what the real issue is. It is classic TRA behaviour though. Obfuscation and avoiding discussing the actual issue at hand. I'm not sure when they're going to realise that other people aren't stupid, we see what they are doing, we have understood the issues and we disagree. Or maybe they do realise that and this is just another "sneak it in through the back door" attempt.

Good news - looks like they haven't caved.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/583bc996-b105-435e-b17f-fcc949d59d0e?shareToken=67cd254da0963979a6b77f0dba3ab436

Bridget Phillipson will overrule MPs and push ahead with the appointment of Sir Keir Starmer’s pick to chair Britain’s equality regulator, who defended women targeted for holding gender-critical views.

Mary-Ann Stephenson has been named as ministers’ preferred candidate to lead the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) when Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the present chair, finishes her term in November.

Well if it is true that's good.

But have to say for me it is more about putting the WEC in its place, than wild enthusiasm for Mary-Ann Stephenson. Although the WEC were so appalling that she positively shone compared to them!

This is fine. MAS is a straight down the line moderate liberal feminist who's spent her professional life embedded in the women's sector.

If she winds up numpties like Sarah Owen who think the EHRC is really just the Trans Rights Commission, I can live with that.

The appointment is as expected and ties in with the publicity for the recent rules clarifications inside Labour.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5374205-labour-party-rules-updated-after-supreme-court-win-women-exist

Seems gender stuff is very much out of favour with the leadership. We can expect more internal drama over this.

Seems gender stuff is very much out of favour with the leadership. We can expect more internal drama over this.

Just internal?!

Given the supposed number of letters, emails or whatever WEC said they received against MAS should we not be prepared for another legal challenge?

This is what it's like as this tanker is slowly turned round.
The word no is used, the rights of other people (women and children) are noticed and addressed. Tantrums will be thrown, naughty words spoken and much stamping of feet.

Finally adults are starting to take back control from the emotionally incontinent drama lamas who have taken up so much energy and attention in the public sphere.

The letter sent by the committee to BP

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48943/documents/256872/default/

I wonder who the other two committee members who did not support the letter were (apart from Rosie Duffied). It's extremely good news tgst Philips is sticking to her guns. The government must stay up to the gender people and hold firm even when they throw a tantrum. I hope it doesn't make MAS's work and positiln impossible that these committees are set against her. The government has to keep an eye on that too. As the committees dont have teeth I assume it will just be an unpleasant experience of reporting to them every so often.

Thanks for that.

In fact it reveals their weakness as a committee, and the fawning of the Human Rights Committee playing 2nd fiddle to the WEC.

And if anything, the HRC could more easily have founds gaps in her experience relating to their work (assuming they do anything).

Otherwise their contrived criticisms of her are just silly.

They may not know but the Women's Budget group has about the widest following of any number of women's groups on various issues. And reaches a far wider audience.

So although my earlier post might have sounded like I was criticising MAS, it is more I want someone radical in that post, but I cant imagine many others who have had her range of experience, even if they dont exactly duplicate what the EHRC would need.

Honestly, the WEC is just so inadequate. Sulky school girls who are used to bullying people.

I suspect one of the others would be Rebecca Paul (coservative).

I would like to think the other one was Baroness Lawrence!

Love this comment from trans Reddit:

"Her focus will be 'women' . Not equalities."

So they do get it!

I'm not a huge fan of Bridget Phillipson when she's got her education hat on, but she gives the impression of being a minister who's very comfortable exercising power. I can't see her withdrawing support from her preferred candidate because Regina George Sarah Owen and her committee throw a strop.

She was extremely firm about universities and free speech in this area. She’s clearly not going to allow the EHRC to be captured anymore

I think at least some of the Labour Party (Wes Streeting, Bridget Phillipson, Keir Starmer when it crosses his radar) are pretty clued up on which way the wind the wind is blowing on this issue, and know that if they appoint a chair of the EHRC who will pander to trans activists then it will be a disaster. MAS is a sensible choice.

BP will have had to get her head around Cass due to its inclusion in kcsie.

there will have to be cross area working between her dept and Wes’s.

Whereas our comments are more along the lines of 'Her focus will be fairness for everybody' - which trans Reddit can't get their heads around.
For them 'equalities' [sic, should be 'equality'] means everything they want, regardless of anybody else.

Nobody on the 'GC' side is asking for trans people to be stripped of the vote or told they can't drive a car or leave the house unless accompanied by a GC chaperone - to trans people, their rights and no more; to women, our rights and no less.

Wow! That letter, not intended for public view, was almost definitely crafted by Helena Kennedy. How utterly transparent. The only reason for rejection was her insistence that women have equalities protections too.

MAS was confident, clearly very capable, experienced, good communication skills, thorough, and has handled very responsible equalty roles in the past. She is a perfect candidate and that was amply demonstrated in her interview.

Yes, I think Baronness Lawrence too.

When will we find out if she has definitely gotten the position?

I think she's ambitious, just like Wes Streeting. To be successful she's going to have to be pragmatic and she knows it.

Interesting comparison of how previous pre appointment scrutinies were conducted compared to this recent one.
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2025/07/14/pre-appointment-scrutiny-of-the-ehrc-chair-putting-current-events-in-context/

Mimmymum is cross https://medium.com/@mimmymum/human-rights-hijacked-the-politicisation-of-the-ehrc-41394ad386b4

And WRN have written a letter and want us to write as well, but the letter is not available in an accessible format (sigh) https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=728423599921478&set=pcb.728423656588139

TRAs have organised an open letter calling on Bridget Phillipson not to approve Mary-Ann Stephenson. They have about 1000 signatures so far.

https://bsky.app/profile/philippaeast.bsky.social/post/3lud447alek2v

Do you think we should write to Bridget Phillipson in support of M-A S's selection? Do you think BP will pay any attention to either side?

The letter is really interesting in that it tells us how they see it and what they are asking for. We are in such a stronger position than we were. Now those who want gender identity to be more important than sex have to actually argue for that, in public. It's useful to know what they are saying. My MP will agree with them- this is where her instincts are.

Discounting the hyperbole, slander of sex matters and other big meanies like us:

They set out the objections by various UN experts, ILga and others.

They point out that

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) chose to intervene in the UK Supreme Court case. They argued that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does change a person’s “sex” under the Equality Act - but that it should not."

And that it looks like the new code of practice will announce the

"mandatory exclusion of trans people from single-sex services of their presenting gender ... regardless of whether providers of single-sex services wish to exclude trans people or not." This will apply to "single-sex support groups, changing rooms, toilets, homeless shelters, domestic violence services and hospital wards."

"Unless Government or Parliament steps in" trans ppl will be banned from sss of their 'lived' gender "with no additional test of a “proportionate means to a legitimate aim” required. Previously trans-inclusive single-sex service providers will no longer have any lawful way to include trans people [....]."

"The EHRC appears happy to ignore the potential freedom of association violations this raises"

They don't state that this is because the SC ruling means it has become clear that this is actually the law. - ( i tend to agree it makes our law restrictive on freedom of association, but anyway) - So they give the impression that ehrc are choosing to do it this way.

It ends with a call to action
"Given the above, the UK is at risk of committing serious human rights violations if the Minister allows the EHRC’s exclusionary and segregationist position to be enshrined into statutory guidance.

I therefore call on you to request that the Minister for Women and Equalities does not approve any new Code of Practice unless and until the serious concerns raised by these multiple international human rights bodies have been fully addressed and resolved."