EHRC Chair Mary-Ann Stephenson: "The Code Could Be Blocked – The Law Remains The Law"

[IwantToRetire]

When Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson became the new Equality and Human Rights Commission chair, she inherited one of Britain’s most bitter public debates. Speaking to Sienna Rodgers, she urges her critics to grasp that the regulator is simply applying the law on sex and gender – and dismisses Reform’s proposed bill for women as ‘motherhood and apple pie’

Quite a long article but I think worth reading
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/ehrc-chair-maryann-stephenson-the-code-blocked-the-law-remains-law

This is precisely what we've all been saying since last April. If a gang of internet ne'er do wells can grasp this, how can legislators not? Oh - hang on - they can, they are just lying, to push a political point.

I can't say I'm impressed with her, it's lucky it's just their job to provide a guidance to the law as it is and not to make the laws, because I'm not sure I'd like any law she comes up with. 🤔

Why? What’s your issue with her?

What makes me laugh is that lots of organisations were waiting for the code to come out so that they could ‘apply the law’ correctly. Now that it has, they’re all saying ‘no, not that code, we want a different code that goes against the law’!

It's actually funny at this point.
How can so many politicians not understand how the law works?
Why do they want to expose public institutions, charities and private organisations to such financial risks?

That's one hell of a stupid thing to do given the economic climate.

And as usual no mention of why women need single sex spaces, and what happens to particular groups of women when men waltz in and out of those spaces.

This.

She seems to think the system is working, if it was then we wouldn't actually need her organisation. She seem to be trying to see things from all sides, which is impossible, either we have single sex spaces or we don't there is no half measures, if you let men into women's spaces, they cease to be women's spaces. The only time she take's a firm stand is with Reform proposals, I'm not saying Reforms proposals will work, but coincidentally they would see an end to her organisation. Funny that.

She has a toilet anecdote! I have statistics of what goes on in stations toilets. BTP don’t have statistics on train carriage toilets but there’s plenty of individual cases which should have given the EHRC cause for concern about introducing more enclosed unisex provision. It’s certainly not the solution they think it is.

I agree with comments about disabled people’s rights. This is really not getting enough attention. It must be so frustrating that gender issues are taking up so much of her time.

Nowhere in the article does she say the system is working.

She is saying exactly the opposite.

She is pointing out that the law was made by the Supreme Court ie she didn't make the law (dont you understand that).

She is point out that the guidelines for organisations to implement the law have been written, and yet not implemented.

The issue isn't her of the EHRC it is everybody else. You are aware of that are you.

She is also pointing out that yes people can block it, which is effectively what is happening know.

And of course, like it or not, Parliament could re-write the Law.

Of all the people to pick on in this sorry mess she / the EHRC are not part of obstructing it.

Would have thought on FWR it is clear that it is the political parties and TRA that are the problem.

Lastly, she isn't saying men should be in women's spaces. Or if she has please do point it out, because it would mean she too has not accepted the Supreme Court ruling which would be very odd for the Chair of the EHRC.

There is a difference between what Approved Document T states and the EHRC statement about facilities.

I generally found the article fine - she maybe seems a bit more fence-sitty than Baroness Faulkner? - but this bit niggled at me:

Stephenson certainly does not agree with those who would scrap the 2004 Gender Recognition Act altogether, as they think it is absurd that someone can acquire an official legal document that has what they would see as the wrong sex recorded on it.

“I think the Gender Recognition Act fulfils an important role,” she says. “It was identified at the European Court of Human Rights that trans people do have Article 8 rights to privacy, and that does include, now established in case law, a right to change your documentation.”

And I have @Keeptoiletssafe’s concerns about the EHRC’s proposal for more of the unsafe, fully-enclosed, toilet designs for unisex use…

Agree about the GRA remark.

Just because a law was passed whether 10 years ago or 100 years ago, doesn't mean it has to continue.

In fact it is strange that there isn't as big a campaign to repeal the GRA as there appears to be one to repeal the EA and the legal definition of sex.

(In fact the supreme court pointed out that it is those with a GRC who were / are most impacted by their ruling. Surely an opening to campaign that as the Supreme Court has ruled that sex is biological the GRA is not logical.)