Bristol City' Council's awful response to the EHRC consultation

[BristolW0man]

Someone has done an FoI and obtained Bristol Council's response to the EHRC Consultation that was held earlier this year regarding their draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations.

Quelle surprise, the council's response is awful. There's a useful thread on X that lays it out: https://x.com/pictseamon/status/1967152146576806346

Highlights (lowlights) include them admitting that their previous equality impact assessments were not carried out correctly and that they have not trained staff to understand the difference between the protected characteristics of gender reassignment (bearing in mind the Equality Act set these out in 2010!)

The homophobia and lack of understanding of the law is also outrageous, the council say:

"A man attracted just to women, whether cis or trans, is heterosexual. The proposed language misgenders trans people and implies that their identities are not real, which is both inaccurate and discriminatory."

This has been picked up by Bev Jackson of the LGB Alliance where she says:

"The constant attempts to redefine sexual orientation on the basis of “gender identity” are a direct assault on the rights of gays and lesbians. They are also “incoherent” - as the UK Supreme Court explained at length in its ruling."

I hope someone sues them.

Also, it makes me wonder what other awful responses the EHRC got and from who - maybe some more FoIs are in order.

greengagesummers
But just as it’s very noticeable that gender ideology actually brings back all the ideas of “man as default human” that we’re historically familiar with, it also even brings back man as the default bodily human (“chestfeeding”) and man as the default linguistic human as well! Next thing we’ll be bringing back “mankind” and the default “he” as it’s “gender neutral” and everyone will nod along sagely.

Yep its as if man has been subsituted by people and women are people with add on body parts.

I am guessing nipplefeeding was too graphic and anyway if attached to a person who can grow a baby they are classed as errotic sex toys.

The Telegraph have this article on the batshit in Bristol

https://archive.ph/cgXDK

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/council-says-women-called-people-with-ovaries/

As well as being offensive to women, lesbians and gay men it just seems so dated. This nonsense was a thing two or so years ago.

@lcakethereforeIam so much batshittery in that article!

"They also demand support for biological men who want to <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/cgXDK/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/21/trans-men-pregnant-labour-mp-sobel-gendered-language-nhs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">“chestfeed” babies, despite questions about whether the practice is harmful."

"The council complained that this [definition of biological sex] means that two biological men in a relationship would be “wrongly” categorised as gay."

"Protections based on biological sex are “too vague”, the response added, as: “It is unclear whether it refers to anyone capable of pregnancy, or only those who were assigned female at birth.”"

Someone remind me again how we got here? And why we should change both language and society to base them instead around the views of a small minority with delusions?

MRA and some women being unable to say only women grow and birth babies and that breastfeeding is a child welfare issue not a validation issue for either parent.

MRA and homophobic men who want to have a homosexual relationship but have everybody pretend they are in a heterosexual one.

MRA and men who want to claim that an office full of male 20 year old to 80 year old managment but female 60 year old to 80 year old management is accidental as they cant work out what a woman is.

I feel like their entre response was written by a Bristolian Isla Bumba, but sent back under the auspices of being an official BCC response. Which means that there may be some/few/several people now lightly shitting themselves because it has their fingerprints on it without having had the actual authority to do so.

The Supreme Court "ruled"
The End.

Even using GI terminology their arguments are utterly idiotic

“It is unclear whether it refers to anyone capable of pregnancy, or only those who were assigned female at birth.”

Only those 'assigned female at birth' can get pregnant. Possibly, and I'm stretching here, there may be a DSD where a biological female may be wrongly observed as male. She may be capable of pregnancy. These must be vanishingly rare, assuming they exist, and writing legislation to accommodate them seems as daft as ordering socks to be sold in ones so people who have lost limbs don't feel excluded.

I was reading earlier that Bristol were planning on replacing ‘maternity’ with a term they consider gender neutral; ‘paternity’. Does anyone have a link for that?

Even then there is no need for new legislation.

The BCC can and should change their birth record or request the other LA holder of the birth record amends its data.

It is contained in the Telegraph's story above (IcaketherforIam at 13:00)

Thanks. I was wondering if I had read a parody somewhere. How on earth did they come to the conclusion that a term specifically for fathers was ‘gender neutral’?

It sounds like something out of a Mitchell and Webb sketch!

They are the baddies

Brilliant to see this coverage. I see that all sorts of people from Sharron Davies to Sall Grover (Australia) have posted the article on the timelines on X/Twitter.

I hope/think that you're right @singthing - some people ought to now be squirming.

This report is only adding fuel to the fire of divisiveness in the political discourse. Talk of chest feeding and people with ovaries is only going to generate support for conservatives and ultra conservatives like Reform.

Is Bristol council completely unaware of wider political currents in the UK, across the pond, and globally? It’s depressing how politically naive and self serving such blind virtual signalling is and how ultimately damaging it is to any kind of progressive politics.

All kinds of progress is being undone because of such ridiculousness as found in this report. It infuriates and upsets me because they take all of us down with them.

Bristol's view is progress - it is the decoupling of sex from its embodiment. Other aspects of progress, such as abortion on demand, universal childcare, sex positivity, and the use of surrogate mothers and the hope we can eliminate mothers entirely, are all served by the idea that TWAW.
If that isn't the progress we want then we must fight against it.

Rot is also progress.

Surely they are having us on? Surely?

I guess it all depends on what we mean by progress? Though I’m not seeing Bristol’s view as progress. IMO it is not possible to decouple sex from its embodiment, but also I see TWAW as being regressive and reductive in its portrayal of ‘woman’ as constituting long hair, a dress and makeup, as well as eroding women’s rights. In my book, those are steps backwards, not forwards.

I think @Grammarnut ia being slightly tongue in cheek, if that’s the right phrase, I do catch her drift. We are being told/sold that this is progress.

Progress is what happens with the passage of time, right? Right?!!

No?

If we don’t like this “progress” then fight we will and fight we must.