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It advises against using language based on compliance with the law saying this is "outdated" and may "cause offence"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

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Sex Matters

Sex Matters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SexMattersOrg

13 Jul
Day 2 #Xpassports case in the Supreme Court.

Christie Elan Cane says per case concerns "the community of non-gendered, non-binary and intersex persons and others whose gender identity is neither, or neither exclusively, male or female.”

Starting in a minute....
You can watch live here…

@fairplaywomen are also watching and commenting
Today it is Sir James Eadie QC for the Home Office who will say that the decision made by the Court of Appeal was correct
Read 99 tweets
12 Jul
We are back with part II of the live tweets of the #XPassports case #ElanCane

Kate Gallafent QC for the Appellant Christie Elan Cane
Judges Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Sales, Lady Rose
KCGQ: starts again on the margin of appreciation in the case of Hammeleinen (a Finnish case on gender recognition)- wide or narrow
1)Narrow is it important to a person's identity? (Passport is customarily used for identity)
3) Wide: competing public & private rights
Margin she says is not a factor in itself - it goes to the balancing exercise, rather than a factor. the degree of latitude given to the state vs the private actor?
Even if there is a wide margin it would still be possible to see if the state has exceeded it.
Read 69 tweets
12 Jul
Sex Matters will be live tweeting the #XPassports Elan Cane case today which is at the Supreme Court.

Starting at 11 am
Counsel for the appelant: The appelant transitioned to non-gendered by two surgeries.
Secretary of state says Gender identity is inate sense of gender - male female both neither or fluid
HMPO has undertaken internal review identified 8 concerns for X passports . None of which are now relied on . Says passport will only be issued for M or F under sex /gender
Read 89 tweets
17 Jun
Also cc: @ChtyCommission @HeritageFundUK

This is belief discrimination.
Read 4 tweets
6 May
The judge should return shortly to give his oral findings in
@AnnMSinnott of Authentic Equity Alliance's contested permission hearing in a proposed judicial review of

Will AEA be permitted to go forward to a full judicial review of EHRC's policy guidance?

Judge returns. All rise.
J: this is an application for JR. Having considered the papers and oral submissions I have concluded that permission should be refused.
Read 33 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!