Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Akua Reindorf KC Profile picture
Akua Reindorf KC
@akuareindorf
Barrister | @LSELaw Visiting Snr Fellow | Book 2027: “Women Exist" https://t.co/Dcs4RhJtPX | Substack: https://t.co/pJaPDpv3vE
Jun 4 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
This is a confusing letter @sianberry.

I have some questions:

1. You’re asking for legislative action in response to a non-legislative Code. Assuming it’s the Equality Act you want to change, does it follow that you accept that the Code accurately reflects the Act as it is? 2. If you accept the Code is legally accurate, why do you say it’s “not fit for purpose”? What would you have had the @EHRC do other than produce an accurate Code? Should they have made it up?
Jun 1 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
@Alonso_GD Could you explain what you mean by "anti-trans talking points" and then identify the ways in which they're unreasonable?

The core of gender critical belief (which I suspect is what you're referring to) is:

A. Sex is real and immutable. Everybody is either male or female.> @Alonso_GD B. There are situations in which sex matters, either because men as a sex class overwhelmingly present a threat of sexual and other violence to women as a sex class, or because of considerations of dignity and privacy.>
May 31 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
Has the @EHRC decided that a trans identifying woman can be banned from both the men’s and the women’s loos?

No!

Here’s a *very* long thread to knock this idea on the head once and for all ⤵️ The Equality Act allows for separate or single-sex services, if certain conditions are met: Schedule 3 paras 26-27.

It also allows for the exclusion of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (trans people) from a single-sex service: Sch 3 para 28. >
May 30 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
I’ve read this feverish, hyperbolic and incoherent article from @novaramedia so you don’t have to 🧵⤵️ 1 First, the facts:

- the @EHRC is an independent arms-length body and is the Equality Act regulator

- the @EHRC Code is 342 pages of statutory guidance to the Act’s provisions on services, public functions & associations, across all protected characteristics & causes of action
May 29 • 13 tweets • 4 min read
🧵 Why is @unisontheunion campaigning against the @EHRC's Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations? 1 Unison is a union. It's concerned with workers rights in workplaces. It's not concerned with the rights of service users in services, people who are affected by the exercise of public functions or members of associations.
May 23 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Long 🧵
1 Reading Billy Bragg comparing the @EHRC Code with Thatcher & section 28 is baffling. In the 80s I was a left wing feminist teenager – demonstrating against s.28, implacably anti-Thatcher, visiting Greenham Common, the whole scene – & I came out as a lesbian in the 90s… 2 Section 28 wasn’t about the LGBTQ+ community. It was about same-sex attracted people. It was an attempt to prevent the normalisation of our private & family lives. At the time lesbians’ kids were being removed by the state & lesbians were routinely violently attacked by men...
May 21 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
🧵 (reposted) on the only big change to the @EHRC Code of Practice made at the behest of @bphillipson: the new paras 12.74 and 12.75 on multi protected characteristic associations... Image 1 This is about *associations* only. It’s a legal interpretation allowing membership of an association to be restricted to those who have either one or the other of two (or more) protected characteristics…
May 18 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
@rachelsfletcher @tarteArcEnCiel @Bird_OnA_Wire @BiologyStupid @SteveChalke Honestly, this conversation is like 2021.
Here are the reasons we don't want trans-identified men to use women's single sex facilities:
1) They're men. That's actually enough, but there's more.
2) They're not a sacred caste. They sexually offend at a higher rate than other men../ @rachelsfletcher @tarteArcEnCiel @Bird_OnA_Wire @BiologyStupid @SteveChalke 3) Even if they were a sacred caste of harmless men, we can't tell them apart from other men, so we'd have to let all men in.
4) They're not at as much risk of injury from men as we are, because they're physically male.../
Apr 29 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
1/ There are 3 kinds of relevant harassment

For all 3, A engages in unwanted conduct which violates B’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B (if not deliberate, it must be reasonable for B to experience it that way).. 2/ The first kind of harassment is where the conduct is "related to" sex. This is broad. Eg:

- telling sexist jokes

- putting sexually explicit posters up

- saying “hiya, big tits” to a woman

- calling a man “a bald c*nt*” (even though some women are also bald)...
Apr 27 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
1/ The @EHRC Code of Practice

- isn’t law

- is guidance which courts can consider but don’t have to follow

- states basic principles for services, associations & those exercising public functions

- isn't bespoke advice for each such organisation

- doesn’t apply to workplaces 2/ “Waiting for the Code of Practice”

- isn’t a defence to acting unlawfully

- is likely to lead to disappointment, b/c it’s not bespoke advice

- is pointless & likely counterproductive for employers, b/c the law for workplaces is very different to that for services etc
Apr 16 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
🧵
1 I’m sure @NadiaWhittomeMP will be correcting the Parliamentary record at her earliest opportunity and withdrawing her statement that the @EHRC interim update went “far beyond even the Supreme Court ruling”. Swift J rejected that argument in R (GLP) v EHRC [2026] ⤵️ 2 A few other points:

“The SC had the unenviable job of attempting to interpret the will of Parliament”: this is a metaphor for “the meaning of the statutory words with regard to their context & the purpose of the legislation”, not "what MPs thought when they passed it" ⤵️
Apr 13 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
🧵

A reminder that:

The SC judgment wasn’t about whether trans people in general should be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act

*It was already known that they should not*

/1 The judgment was *only* about whether the c.10k trans people with Gender Recognition Certificates should be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act

*The Supreme Court decided that they should not*

/2
Feb 13 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Here Jolyon says, disgracefully, that “the judiciary can’t be trusted always” and that the judgment in GLP’s judicial review against EHRC is “really ugly”. He tells people not to believe what the media says, because it’s apparently “not quite true” that the Claimants lost.../1 It is, of course, 100% true. GLP lost on standing, and the other Claimants lost on every substantive ground.

Jolyon also refers to the “fact” that the judge “has agreed with [GLP] about service provision outside the workplace”.../2 Image
Feb 11 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
The position is this:
Facilities in services (eg changing rooms in leisure centres, public toilets) can be provided on a single-sex basis under Sch 3 §§26-27 of the Equality Act 2010. There are various conditions in Sch 3 that have to be met, including that the service is.../1 a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The EA doesn’t say that services have to provide single-sex facilities, but it might be direct or indirect discrimination against women to fail to provide them, depending on the facts.../2
Jun 6, 2025 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
I expect the misleading headline and first para of this article to be urgently corrected. Trans people's rights haven't been reduced and I didn't at any time say that they had. I said that trans people have been lied to about what their rights are.

theguardian.com/society/2025/j… The first paragraph has now been slightly changed but the headline remains defamatory
Apr 28, 2025 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
@GreenJennyJones @soniasodha @ForWomenScot @MForstater @carla_denyer 🧵It’s an inevitable consequence of the judgment.

In general an association mustn’t discriminate against a person by depriving them of membership because of a protected characteristic: s.101(1). So eg a reading group can’t say “no disabled people” /1 Image @GreenJennyJones @soniasodha @ForWomenScot @MForstater @carla_denyer But there’s an exception which says that an association can be limited to people who share a protected characteristic: Sch 16 para 1. Thus an association can be limited to women, disabled people, older people, black people etc /2 Image
Apr 17, 2025 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
There are several concerning legal inaccuracies in this piece by barrister Sam Fowles about yesterday’s landmark #SupremeCourt decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers 🧵⬇️
theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 1. The decision does not leave the legal rights of women untouched and nor does it make the legal landscape more complex. Quite the reverse on both counts. Image
Dec 7, 2022 • 14 tweets • 4 min read
This report is an interesting contribution to the debate on free speech in higher education. There’s quite a lot I disagree with – a few initial thoughts in 🧵⬇️. For more lively debate on this subject don’t forget to sign up for the @officestudents #OfSInsight event next week! Link here: