This - by an EHRC Commissioner - is a *defence* of the impact of the Supreme Court judgement.
The impact is obviously, and quite deliberately, to exclude trans people from public spaces, and to claim that it's fine, legally, politically and morally. Absolutely shameful.
The impact is obviously, and quite deliberately, to exclude trans people from public spaces, and to claim that it's fine, legally, politically and morally. Absolutely shameful.
Comments
One could speculate that’s because doing so would leave the ruling open to scientific scrutiny. Biologically, sex is not an immutable binary. (Another reason using ‘biological woman’ for ‘non-trans woman’ is misleading.)
They define "Legal sex" for the equality act as "Biological Sex" which they define as original birth cert sex
False. A KC states what the judgement means, then says that "lawful solutions that preserve dignity and enable the full participation of trans people in public life must be found".
More to the point, another person defending this double-bind did so by saying it’s only those who “pass” who would be affected, the exact opposite of what you’ve just said.
Happy with that?
https://archive.ph/9pyRp
It's disgusting & absurd that she's senior in the EHRC but that's the reality of the situation and many trans people and allies know it
So going 'why would an equal rights org do this?' in an incredulous tone makes you seem ignorant at best
The article does *not* say "there needs to be..unisex"; on the contrary it very clearly implies that it is *perfectly legal*, albeit unfortunate, for their to be male/female and for some people to be entirely excluded.
If I said "Government is right to stick to its ironclad fiscal rules no matter what, so we can't abolish two-child limit, but of course we must do something about child poverty"
..then you can say I'm "fine" with child poverty.
Not hard
Why do they never stop lying?
Loads of long term staff lost their jobs, and recruitment was outsourced to a private agency.
The three separate organisations did truly great work.
Was this not from the article?
https://bsky.app/profile/jdportes.bsky.social/post/3lng7luuv2k2c
And I am not convinced that a solution cannot be found which satisfies the reasonable needs of all.
The analogy with child poverty helps me understand where you're coming from. Thank you.
It is certainly true that in far too many areas, the political class pays lip service to unacceptable problems without making them a real priority.
But … 1/2
Please do not claim I am disingenuous & dishonest.
This is my area of academic expertise.
I am a feminist sport policy academic.
Single sex female sport must be just that. Single sex.
On order to uphold substantive equality for women & girls.
Right now, in 2025, most places don't have unisex facilities, and for obvious reasons cannot simply extend their premises to add them.
So 1) will you support the conversion of single sex spaces to unisex and 2) where do you propose trans people go in the mean time?
Because female people matter too.
So third spaces are a good way to go if they don't want to access spaces.
"Nothing further is needed to show that trans people should not be permitted to use the service in accordance with the sex in which they identify."
/1
“It was never true that trans people could use services /do sport according to self-identified gender”.
Uh—it says *exactly* this in your Statutory Code of Practice that’s existed for 15 years & is still on your website.🤬
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf
In fact 🏳️⚧️ folk are just repeating what the EHRC has told them consistently for 15 years:
“Yes, a GRC changes legal sex”
“Service providers should treat trans people according to the gender role in which they present”
But it doesn't say that this is fine.
It says that legal means must be found to provide safe spaces for everyone.
A requirement to accommodate trans people in separate rooms would be a start. If there aren't enough rooms now, this could be fixed quickly if this was really a priority. #Nightingale
If she'd said "Meanwhile the default -legally and morally - *must* be mixed sex spaces" then fine. But she's very clearly *not" saying that. And it's clear why.
If that was deemed ‘unsafe’ then we could tackle the violent aggressors (regardless of gender or sex) so there was safety- for everyone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-lay-new-law-to-halt-the-march-of-gender-neutral-toilets-in-buildings
In schools & workplaces over single sex provision is mandatory.
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/category/womens-rights/single-sex-toilets-womens-rights/#:~:text=The%20law%20which%20mandates%20that,washing%20facilities%20(Reg%2021).
Toilets: toilets can be in separate lockable rooms (not cubicles).
Happy to help.