Thread by @SexMattersOrg

Any organisation considering whether they should stay in the @stonewalluk schemes should consider that they are not in line with the @EHRC employers code of practice.

Why take the risk of signing up to a scheme that is different from the law?

sex-matters.org/wp-content/upl…

Stonewall tells employers to "acknowledge the limitations of the Equality Act (2010)"

It advises against using language based on compliance with the law saying this is "outdated" and may "cause offence"

Ignore what the law says about protected characteristics says Stonewall guidance

"Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" are treated as protected characteristics.

They are not.

"Best practice" monitoring is not in line with GDPR or Equality Act

Ignores sex, substitute gender identity

And more confusion and conflation of protected characteristics...

The EHRC said specifically in AEA v EHRC that this is not right.

It can be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim to have facilities which are *single sex* and which do not include people on the basis of gender identity.

No consideration of what this policy means for inclusion of women and girls, including those from faith groups.

"High barrier of proof"... this does not come from the Equality Act.

The Equality Act says circumstances where "a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex".

Organisations should take care to comply with the Equality Act... all 9 protected characteristics.

Stonewall guidance does not help them do this and puts them at risk of facing discrimination and harassment claims in relation to other protected characteristics