https://x.com/SoniaRGallego/status/2009601971045486936
A summary of journalist Sonia Gallego's points, my bold:
Sonia Gallego@SoniaRGallego
1/ The question of whether the notion of gender identity has supremacy over the reality of sex continues to dominate, despite the Supreme Court ruling. Gender Identity is an unfalsifiable idea. Sex in humans is innate, immutable and a core fact of our evolution as a species.
2/ While biological sex doesn’t change, UK law just lets you update the paperwork in certain contexts if someone has an unverifiable belief that they are the opposite sex. But the Gender Recognition Act is an admin process, not alchemy.
3/ For those who purport to present as the opposite sex, they are protected from discrimination—but that doesn’t rewrite their biology, which remains legally relevant under the Equality Act.
4/ Treating gender identity as overriding biological sex is a belief system, not a scientific fact. No one should be compelled to affirm it at work, at school, or while trying to access public services.
5/ A Gender Recognition Certificate changes your legal sex for certain purposes ie it lets you amend birth, death and marriage certificates. It’s a paper trail, not a metamorphosis.
6/ You don’t even need a GRC to change sex markers on passports and driving licences—just a deed poll, a sympathetic GP’s letter, and some forms. No court, no diagnosis, no fuss.
7/ It becomes a bit more complicated when it gets to safeguarding and background checks. DBS checks are meant to link all your previous identities, with a discreet “sensitive applications” route for trans applicants. In reality, the system leans heavily on honesty. Name changes and altered sex markers give the dishonest a few more cracks to slip through, safeguarding optics notwithstanding.
8/ Back to last April’s Supreme Court ruling. The judges unanimously ruled that “sex” under the Equality Act means biological sex, full stop—not the legal fiction of a GRC. A certificate has limited effects elsewhere, but it doesn’t redefine you for Equality Act purposes or single-sex spaces.
9/ The Equality Act explicitly allows single-sex services where “proportionate”—in rape crisis centres, refuges, women’s groups, changing rooms, female sports. Lawfulness depends on context, but the law clearly contemplated that women might want spaces without men in them.
10/ So why is Phillipson delaying the approval of the guidance when it’s so clearly laid out in the law? One possibility may be internal Labour Party politics and the structure of support within the organisation but Ms Phillipson has denied that it is.
11/ But here’s the thing: Bridget Phillipson has the backing of GMB and UNISON, both cheerleaders for gender self-ID and trans-inclusive policy—positions many of their female members don’t share. Union muscle beats grassroots dissent, for now. NB UNISON’s membership is 78% women — that includes nurses.
12/ In practice, many women see their sex-based rights shunted aside whenever they conflict with the demands of males who identify as women—especially when ministers won’t clearly defend single-sex services for fear of upsetting the gender-identity activists.
13/ The endless delays and excuses around updated EHRC guidance send a blunt message: women’s legal protections are up for negotiation, bargaining chips to keep trans-identifying men happy and continue to concede to their demands to be in every female space above the sex-based protections of women and girls.
14/ This excellent column by @soniasodha explains the dynamics behind the delay:
From thetimes.com
15/ And here is Ms Phillipson explaining the reason for her delaying sign-off of the updated EHRC guidance. It’s in the last five minutes of the show:
Final thought: The @EHRC has done its part. Updated statutory guidance is waiting to be approved. The power to do so rests with @bphillipsonMP The delay — and its consequences — are her own doing and, consequently, that of @UKLabour