Morning all, I've put together a post on my *likely responses to the EHRC consultation* which can serve as guidance if you're struggling to take it all in or understand where to go with it. 1/ sandraduffy.blog/2025/05/21/r... - ThreadSky

sandraduffy.bsky.social • 34 days ago

Morning all, I've put together a post on my *likely responses to the EHRC consultation* which can serve as guidance if you're struggling to take it all in or understand where to go with it. 1/

https://sandraduffy.blog/2025/05/21/responses-to-the-ehrc-code-of-practice-consultation/

Comments

theusernamehere.bsky.social•33 days ago

📌

laurenbeukes.com•34 days ago

This was so helpful, thank you. I would have been totally overwhelmed and probably given up if not for your step-by-step guide. I worry that they'll use some form of generative AI to filter identical responses, so I did a lot of paraphrasing, but I could also be needlessly paranoid.

kd-smith.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

allmyownwork.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

jennyb63.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

scarlettfreya.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

scarlettfreya.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thank you for this 🫶🏻

sapphiremeadow.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thank you, I have bookmarked this for some days when I have the spoons to sit at at computer.

franamery.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

This focuses on two things:

1) getting our answers read by repeating 'unclear' and 'inaccurate' lots
2) pointing out the bits where they are being transphobic or potentially breaching human rights law 2/

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

Unfortunately you will have to do 1) in order to get 2) in front of anyone's eyes, therefore you have to be somewhat restrained in your answers to the questions. There is, however, an 'any other feedback' box at the end where you can be more personal in your response. 3/

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

It's pretty long but I broke it down into each section and mini-section with my own likely answers as suggestions for what could be said to each one. I'm open to discussion of course. 4/

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thanks to @transpridebristol.bsky.social for being my guinea pigs on this and to @hahahahafren.bsky.social for reading along and commenting where needed, as well as to my wife (not a lawyer) for pointing out the absurdities in the new Code of Practice as I went along. 5/end?

flog61.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thank you Sandra! Point one is interesting - do you have a source as to how it works (in terms of ensuring responses are read eg by repeating unclear)

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

I'm just going on the instructions given. They want feedback on the clarity and accuracy of the points, that's the instruction given on each question - so I'm giving them the words they need to tick off, to actually read the rest of the answer.

anneindevon.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

priamble.bsky.social•34 days ago

This is incredible work, thank you for putting this together

bickerrecord.bsky.social•29 days ago

Thank you for this. Very helpful.

lousadzak.bsky.social•34 days ago

"legal sex is the sex that was recorded at your birth"

- some jurisdictions record sexes other than M and F, so this cannot be the case as "biological sex" is deemed to be binary
- GRCs act to amend the sex recorded at birth, and they do not operate as a "legal fiction" (as per SC)

lousadzak.bsky.social•34 days ago

treating "unamended birth certificate" as "biological sex" is erroneous, because many people do not have one the former from which the latter can be determined

the judgment specifies that "biological sex" specifically is the characteristic in question; how that is to be determined is unclear

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thank you! I am taking a break from this right now to do some real work but I will come back to it later!

johnw60.bsky.social•33 days ago

Further point the Supreme Court didn’t use birth sex. It used biological sex. In Goodwin the ECHR wasnt prepared to limit biological sex to chromosome sex see below and surrounding paras. A trans person could still be considered biologically a woman on the facts

johnw60.bsky.social•34 days ago

Have you noted the error of the EHRC at para 2.2.8 of their consultation which suggests providers can ask about GRC‘s directly contradicting para 202 of the unanimous Supreme Court judgment below which says you can’t? No proper warnings by the EHRC of the criminal consequences of breach of s22 GRA

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

Interesting find! I'll add it. I'm compiling a feedback section with the good bits people send me. There is an explicit warning about breach of s22 GRA though, it's in the section 2 guidance.

johnw60.bsky.social•33 days ago

It also occurs to me that in stating at 202 that service providers cannot ask for GRCs the Supreme Court’s decision should be taken as recognising the obligations in Art 8 on privacy. Art 8 cannot be overridden and needs referencing throughout the guidance.

johnw60.bsky.social•34 days ago

Ok thanks but surely that warning should be in 2.2.8 too. One can imagine in practice questions being asked about GRCs in public settings by receptionists, security guards etc. also it’s supposed to be the Equality and Human Rights Com where are article 8 and Goodwin references in the consultation?

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

There's literally one reference to Article 8 and Goodwin doesn't appear at all, it's awful.

I'll go back and go over this point with a view to editing it in, thanks for raising it.

bahbahbiker.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

cherryl.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

sjsbunchberry.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thanks for doing this nasty but needed task

sjsbunchberry.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

harry-is-human.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thank you for this. An additional thought if I may - as a Public Sector worker any decision I make must comply with Human Rights Act. If guidance is vague or unhelpful about whether it had properly accounted for Article 8, it's unworkable for me.

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

You definitely may and I'd encourage you to make that point in your submission. I'm going to add that in and quote you if you don't mind?

harry-is-human.bsky.social•34 days ago

Don't mind at all 👍

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

Star, thank you.

harry-is-human.bsky.social•34 days ago

Is this worth adding in?

auska.esq•34 days ago

"It is unclear how this can be done without breaching A8 (and 'being sensitive' does not count)"?

clairew56.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

rubecula52.bsky.social•33 days ago

I've written up thoughts on the consultation from a service provider perspective, I'd love to get thoughts on it from others:
https://medium.com/@erubecula52/comments-on-the-ehrc-guidance-following-fws-supreme-court-ruling-from-a-service-provider-1f69417756b5

rubecula52.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

grimmbanks.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thank you. I started filling it in last night but stopped as I felt I wasn't helping with how I was answering. Can I ask why you suggest not putting your email address on at the end?

sandraduffy.bsky.social•34 days ago

Just for your own security to be honest. I've no reason to doubt the anonymity of the form but I also don't see why I'd give them my details as having filled it out!

grimmbanks.bsky.social•34 days ago

Thanks again, you're a star 🌟

auska.esq•34 days ago

On 13.4, it seems to me like the designation of trans women as individually and inherently presenting a threat a priori is an entirely different category of discrimination from the rest. Is there a way to highlight?

(I'd argue the consultation has engaged in criminal hate speech in writing that.)

mindspikes.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

sylvie-62.bsky.social•34 days ago

📌

flexasync.bsky.social•34 days ago

My answer to 1) will note that there is according to the Supreme Court a conflict between sex for the GRA and sex for the EA, and the EHRC should help service providers to distinguish which definition is operative for them and how to - without unlawful discrimination - tell where service users fall