Equalities Watchdog not fit for purpose
So this week has been, lets be frank, a crap week for LGBT people in the UK. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) answered a letter to them by Kemi Badenoch, the Equalities minister about changing the law that is most important for all LGBT people, The Equality Act 2010.
She has asked the EHRC to consider the pro’s and con’s of changing the definition of sex under the act to biological sex.
Now as we all know, the EHRC is anything but supportive of Transgender Rights so they wrote back to her saying the following :-
"A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others," she said in a statement accompanying her reply and published on the commission's website.
Falkner said the move could bring "greater legal clarity" in eight areas, including sport and pregnancy and maternity protections. She outlined three areas in which it could be more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous: equal pay provisions, and both direct and indirect sex discrimination.
If this change went ahead, it would mean that a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) is no longer valid, so might as well be a piece of toilet paper. Also it would mean a ban on Transgender Men and Women to go to the single sex spaces that they identify as.
In reality, it would erase transgender people from being represented in law in the UK.
While this does not surprise me in the slightest that the transphobic Equalities Minister and EHRC would want to do this, what did, and as hurt a lot of people, is Kier Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, supported changes to the Equality Act as well.
Not only this, but when pressed by Pink News what the definition of “Biological Sex” means, the head of the EHRC couldn’t give a straight answer. So they recommended a change to the most important law for LGBT+ people and not even know what they recommended.
She has asked the EHRC to consider the pro’s and con’s of changing the definition of sex under the act to biological sex.
Now as we all know, the EHRC is anything but supportive of Transgender Rights so they wrote back to her saying the following :-
"A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others," she said in a statement accompanying her reply and published on the commission's website.
Falkner said the move could bring "greater legal clarity" in eight areas, including sport and pregnancy and maternity protections. She outlined three areas in which it could be more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous: equal pay provisions, and both direct and indirect sex discrimination.
If this change went ahead, it would mean that a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) is no longer valid, so might as well be a piece of toilet paper. Also it would mean a ban on Transgender Men and Women to go to the single sex spaces that they identify as.
In reality, it would erase transgender people from being represented in law in the UK.
While this does not surprise me in the slightest that the transphobic Equalities Minister and EHRC would want to do this, what did, and as hurt a lot of people, is Kier Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, supported changes to the Equality Act as well.
Not only this, but when pressed by Pink News what the definition of “Biological Sex” means, the head of the EHRC couldn’t give a straight answer. So they recommended a change to the most important law for LGBT+ people and not even know what they recommended.
Comments
Post a Comment