EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year

[OhBuggerandArse]

Ministers really can't cope with acknowledging the law, can they?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7cd9e2f-2635-409d-a624-a833611a09fc?shareToken=f3f89ea86fb5c264c18866395c93194d

I hope this is just a flag they're sending up to evaluate how much pushback there might be - let's make sure that the pushback is noisy, articulate and effective.

Would there be merit in a campaign that targets businesses by pointing out the law and stating that the absence of guidance or incorrect guidance does not absolve them of their legal responsibilities? If there is, this could be a centrally funded campaign that involves targeted advertising or it could be local, involving a template that locals could use for local branches and businesses.

Feminism is the refusal to define a woman

Feminism is the refusal to define a whimbersnizzle

Feminism is the refusal to define feminism

What they've done here is take a reasonable proposition:

'Feminism is the refusal to limit or disadvantage women on the basis of their sex' - and removed some crucial elements. It's turned the statement into its complete antithesis.

If 'feminism' is the refusal to define a woman, then it is anti-women. If you can't define 'woman' then you cannot have rights for women.

Which is arguably the whole point unfortunately.

Gender ideology however is the refusal to face reality.

Feminism is the refusal to define a woman

There's a sneaky word play in this.

Feminism does include refusing to let our sex define us as human beings. That is, refusing to let the fact that we are female define (determine, restrict) our personalities or options in life.
That does not mean that the definition (dictionary meaning) of being a woman should be removed or changed.

Two different senses of the word define. Deliberate sleight of hand.

I'm confused, is it being delayed or just threatening to delay it?

There is a serious, concerted effort within government to delay (as a step to destroying) the guidance and by extension, the judgment.

I'll open the betting book now, but am no longer taking bets on the option of Starmer doing absolutely fuck all, because that's an obvious certainty.

I don't even think it is that sophisticated. It is rooted in illogicality and an inability to think critically or coherently. Just buzz words and confused concepts randomly strung together.

The government are going to have to be instructed into what constitutes legal compliance. This is nothing but a cynical and uninformed ruse to delay matters so as to try to avoid losing voters to the Greens and to keep those rebellious backbenchers on board. Head in sand territory.

"A spokesman for the EHRC said: "We do not think it necessary for the EHRC to
assess the cost to businesses of complying with the law, ahead of our updated
services code of practice being laid in parliament. The code is not regulation, noris it legislation. It is practical guidance to help duty bearers understand what thelaw requires of them and how they can comply with it.

"These obligations are imposed by the Equality Act 2010, not by the guidance weprovide on it. The law is in place and duty bearers should be ensuring that theycomply with it now. An assessment of costs would therefore support neither theminister's consideration of the updated code nor parliament's scrutiny of it
because the impacts such an analysis would identify will be experienced
whether or not the code is in place"

Do they need another court case?

Feels like it. Let's go!

Interesting thread from Maya. An impact assessment has already been done.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1984245139750240519?t=g7vnhvlwyOsZhxClFMk1QQ&s=19

Impact assessments are done before new laws are passed, and one was done on the Equality Act 2010.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ce151…

But then Press for Change and other transgender lobby groups got involved and the infamous "case-by-case" guidance was added.

... with no further consultation... and no impact assessment.

This is the text of the thread minus many links to data etc:

Impact assessments are done before new laws are passed, and one was done on the Equality Act 2010.

It correctly estimated that the number of gender reassignment discrimination cases in goods and services would be low.

It said there would be some costs from businesses familiarising themselves with the legislation.

It also noted in relation to changes to disability discrimination that there would also be an increase in the amount spent on "reasonable adjustments" by businesses.

This includes things like unisex accessible toilets, which are now widely available.

This includes things like unisex accessible toilets, which are now widely available.

It also looked at the expansion of the coverage of gender reassignment discrimination to include perceived discrimination, and anticipated the widening trans umbrella to cover "transvestites".

Of course it wasn't suggesting that these trans identifying men were being discriminated against if they were not allowed into women's showers!

So the costs of compliance have already been worked out, and then the guidance, based on the law was produced.

But then Press for Change and other transgender lobby groups got involved and the infamous "case-by-case" guidance was added.

... with no further consultation... and no impact assessment.

One day the cost of that bad guidance will be added up

• the cost of Stonewall training across 25% of the workforce
• the cost of sex and belief discrimination as women's rights were eroded
• the time wasted by businesses trying to do the unworkable
• damage to integrity of public bodies

The only coherent way to protect women against discrimination is a clear understanding of sex.

So now in 2025 the Supreme Court has clarified that Stonewall law was never the law.

Transvestites never had the right to access women's spaces and services.

The only "cost" of fixing this is the loss of face of the civil servants who clamoured to be amongst the best at meeting Stonewall's criteria instead of sticking to the law.

Transvestites never had the right to access women's spaces and services.

The only "cost" of fixing this is the loss of face of the civil servants who clamoured to be amongst the best at meeting Stonewall's criteria instead of sticking to the law.

The only "cost" of fixing this is the loss of face of the civil servants who clamoured to be amongst the best at meeting Stonewall's criteria instead of sticking to the law.

Two Tier can't, those 50 MP's that signed the letter might leave Labour in a huff, and that would trigger a general election, our fearless leader is shit scared of his lunatic fringe.

Also what are the costs anyway? If a loo is unisex, it's unisex. If it's male it's male. If it's female, it's female.

The only cost I can think of is if they had a loo which said it was unisex and needs to have a new sign to say single sex but I very rarely see any loos like that in the UK - most unisex loos are the single unit accessible ones so don't need any changes.

+Quite. It's not difficult.

Large businesses will have separate staff toilets: if they're not self contained cubicles change the signs, and allocate a proportional number gender neutral with the others staying single sex.

Small business, shops etc more likely to have single use cubicles. No problem.

What is this mysterious and back breaking cost? And why is it unmanageable? There was a big pout and grump when the regs came in about disabled access, but there were LA grants and basically people were told to get on with it.

o

Wonder if activists are pushing for their only accepted solution being everything to be turned to single cubicles in the 'if you won't play by my rules the ball goes home' kind of way.

You have to wonder what they thought the situation was before - presumably that it was a free for all and nobody cared who used which toilet or understood what the signs on the door meant?

I might be biased, but I haven’t seen anyone genuinely say the equality act 2010 needs to actually be rewritten or have I missed something? Green party excluded of course.

Labour had a majority of 174 seats back in July 2024 - surely they haven't lost so many seats/MPs already that the loss of 50 MPs would trigger a general election?

No sources to hand, but yes heard that said. Kicking the guidance into the long grass won't change the law, it's the law that's the issue to the lobby. It is going to be very naive and unhelpful to the case for women to wait until peer reviewed definite evidence of this.

It would essentially mean turning the EqA into the trans act however. And it would have to go through parliament process, debate, sharing with the general public that this is setting out to remove women and gay rights to benefit men who wish to be able to ill treat women and gay people without inconvenient boundaries. It is something really that should require a mandate at the very least. But we'll see I guess.

I honestly think that rewrite is impossible. There isn’t a huge appetite for it and Reform is banging at the gate

plus there seems to be much much bigger things at play

the guidance might be delayed

the court cases are not

all three we know about are about to find in gender critical favour

I just think if the government of the day had 50 MP's leave on mass it would start a chain reaction, if 50 MP's lose faith in the own party, enough for them to cross the aisle, the authority of the government would be so undermined that they would have to call a general election.

It'd be an immense act of self harm by many of those fifty MPs I suspect. Reform are knocking at a lot of doors. I think the last bunch that tried to form a breakaway group all lost their seats at the next GE. There would be a bunch of Labour voters who'd be well pissed of with them too. This is virtue signalling to placate a small number of noisy wokesters.

Agreed, but I don't think rational thought is the forte of the 50, I'd like to see Starmer call their bluff. 😂

Followed the r- trans reddit link by @SingleSexSpacesInSchools
Wow - what an interesting place that is
Some er.. fascinating views
They seem to be very very pleased at the "delay" re EHRC guidance