The government has announced that it is not pursuing sex self-ID
This is a remarkable turnaround and is testament to the grassroots organising of ordinary women standing up for women's rights in the face of well funded lobby groups.
Women stood up, despite smears, threats to our safety and livelihoods and silence from those meant to protect our rights.
I lost my job over wanting to talk about this government consultation
Many others too
Organisations -& official guidance - ran ahead of this decision, acting as if self ID was already the law.
The lack of clear guidance leaves service providers scared of saying no to males who want to use female spaces.
Fear & confusion should never be confused with consent.
Women said no to legal sex self-ID.
Now we have to get clarity on the Equality Act and single sex services.
The government states correctly that service providers are allowed to restrict access to spaces and services on the basis of biological sex, if there is a clear justification.
The clear justification is that a single sex service is needed
and this requires unambiguous rules
But they equivocate saying that people are able to chose to their gender and impose themselves on services for the opposite sex.
There is no sound basis for this.
There is now a need for clarity on single sex spaces, in line with the Equality Act.
The phrase “gender identity” appears 36 times in the judgment
Leonardo’s policy is that any member of staff who is proposing to to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purposes of reassigning their gender can use the toilets intended for the opposite sex.
I am hugely grateful to Naomi Cunningham for the work that she has done as the first chair of Sex Matters, and for her equally important role as a barrister representing claimants using the law to fight for justice.
The arguments made on behalf of the Women and Equalities Minister yesterday were a desperate attempt to shoehorn "case-by-case" back into the single sex services following the Supreme Court judgment.
At paragraph 36 she says there are there are no equivalent exceptions to the single sex service exceptions that apply to employers.
She seems to have forgotten the provisions about protection of women in Schedule 22!
She said that the FWS case was principally decided by reference to maternity rights.
It wasn't. The SC concluded "it important that the EA is interpreted in a clear & consistent way so that groups which share a PC can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way"
Ollie was Chair of the Civil Service Rainbow Alliance for 9 years from 2008 -2017, then held a number of roles in the GEO.
So all the time that the government was getting the law wrong and getting Stonewall prizes for he was leading this.
In 2012 he wrote in Civil Service World about his personal opinion that the government shouldn't renege on its commitment to this particular approach to diversity.
Peter Wilkins case exposes another public body (this one part of @DefenceHQ) that lost sight of the Equality Act and of civil service principles of impartiality and objectivity.
One colleague accused him of making a "threatening" FOI request when he tried to draw attention to @dstlmod 's Line Manager’s Guide.
The FOI was turned down but I tried again.
At first DSTL said they couldn't find the document.
I said "have another look, its on your intranet" and they located it.
Then they thought long and hard about whether they could withhold it on security grounds.