Read on Twitter
This is a thread by a law student re @jk_rowling and her essay. The student says that the latter is wrong about her concerns about separate and single sex facilities and exemptions. Clearly the law student fails to follow the clear interrelationship between s9 Gender Recognition https://twitter.com/RhiannonV/status/1270840239100170242
Act, the definition of sex in s11 Equality Act, and the impact both today and, the possible impacts if we move to self ID on who is deemed as man and women legally. Ive written previously
for example about potential impacts of move to self ID (obviously subject to evidence etc) on changes to who is comparator for sex discrimination claims, equal pay claims and to single and separate sex exemptions for facilities, sport, occupations etc. The
lobbyists, policy makers and academics, who suggest that concerns like mine (and other specialist discrimination lawyers) about this issue are unfounded have failed to do the usual sort of detailed & evidenced research and legal analysis you would normally see in other legal
conflict of competing rights issues. Why is that? Is it because #NoDebate stance of Stonewall has made it too toxic to do the necessary and very normal work of proper Equality Impact Assessments(EIAs), and research into why some women (including teenagers, disabled women, BAME,
religious women, older women) want single and separate sex facilities, services and the sex based exceptions (which Stonewall campaigned to remove) not just retained in law but actively used. Even today, pre self ID, policy makers are treating self ID as if it were already
law. Just because they pretend there is no conflict does make it true. Even if just a few object, because of their protected class, to a policy benefitting another protected class, there *is* a conflict, and due regard needs to made. Currently I can read umpteen EIAs where policy
makers have failed to consider anyone but trans people on policies (even if labelled as about trans people) which affect people of *all* protected classes. This is unlawful. Education/guidance on the Equality Act, on how to make policy where there are conflicts of
competing rights, and how to do EIAs lawfully should be provided by @EHRC. Sadly their leadership and independence on this issue has been sadly woeful. A final point: you will note that I have not said anything at all about the merits of the current or proposed law change,
just about good law and policy making using equality law principles. Yet even to write this will be deemed transphobic. Think about what that tells you about the current political and policy making power and who it rests with currently. End
