Erasing the word ‘mother’ from policies that affect only women & girls is not ‘gender-neutral’ but erases the significance of sex in the very area where sex is all important. Inclusive language doesn’t exclude the words women have used to describe themselves for centuries.
Without public debate, the Scottish Government has removed the word ‘mother’ from its maternity policies at the direction of Stonewall, the organisation that the Scottish Goverment is paying to lobby it to make such changes. archive.is/KxV2O
Is your company a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme?
Sex Matters has found that Stonewall advice is often not in line with the Statutory Codes of Practice on implementing the Equality Act: sex-matters.org/posts/updates/…
Find our report
‘Understanding the risk of following Stonewall guidance – briefing for employers’
and all other Sex Matters publications here:
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)
2)Consensus? 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.
R: the claimant claims that there is no reason to justify the exclusion, from women's spaces, transgender males with a GRC, and that there is no practical difference between excluding a trans person with and without a GRC.
Thank you for all the kind appreciation of our live tweeting of #MayaAppeal today (including offers of Veuve Cliquot). What we'd like best of all is if you'd head over to our website and sign up to the campaign.
And please talk to your friends, relatives and colleagues. Here's our 'elevator pitch' in thread form.
Sex matters to everyone. Girls and women need privacy from boys and men - in school and public toilets; in changing rooms at swimming pools, gyms and clothes shops.
Yesterday we heard from Appellant's counsel, Ben Cooper QC. We also heard from Karon Monaghan QC for the Equalities & Human Rights Commission, in support of the appellant; and from Aileen McColgan QC for civil liberties watchdog Index on Censorship, in support of the appellant.
Today we will hear from Jane Russell, appearing on behalf of the Respondent employer CGD Europe. Ben Cooper QC should have time to respond towards the end of the day to any issues raised by the respondent's submissions. That's the plan, anyway.
We've been reflecting further on the judge's tantalising indication that there could be an extempore judgment this afternoon. #MayaAppeal#Comment
The natural expectation, in a case that's had so much scholarship brought to bear on it, and attracted so much public attention, is a long heavyweight judgment in 3 or 4 months' time. #MayaAppeal#Comment
The argument for Maya is detailed, thorough and scholarly - as well as persuasive. It had to be: this case is a big deal. #MayaAppeal#Comment
Reflecting on today's #MayaAppeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, we have selected some highlights from Karon Monaghan QC's submissions on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Intervenor in the Appeal.
The EHRC submitted
1. Maya's philosophical belief is that sex is a material reality not to be conflated with gender identity and that sex matters.
2. Employment Tribunal Judge Tayler should have concluded that Maya's philosophical belief (that Sex Matters) falls under the protection of the Equality Act 2010
KMQC: EHRC not taking a position on the underlying matters of controversy. But pointing out where the ET got the law wrong: had it got the law right, it would have been bound to find C's belief protected.
EHRC takes no issue with the points made by BCQC, so can be short. #MayaAppeal
There is some lack of clarity in what the ET finally concluded C's belief was.
Ben Cooper (BC, counsel for the appellant Maya Forstater, A): the test for a protected belief is a highly context-dependent one. You can't restrict speech simply because it causes hurt of distress. There is heightened protection where there is a debate of public insterest.
There is heightened protection where contribute to debate on matter of public interest – ‘little scope’ for restriction in such circumstances.