u/elfinsafety

This is an email that I have sent to Yvette Cooper, following her crap “the law is the law” justification for segregating NHS wards in a radio interview…

Dear Yvette,

I note with some concern your interview with Times Radio in which you asserted that "the law is the law" in response to questions about the EHRC guidance with respect to NHS wards and some London councils' statement that they will defy the guidelines.

May I remind you that while judges can interpret the law, and thus set precedents in case law, Parliament is sovereign and the Government has the power to make or change the law?

This is particularly relevant to examples like the For Women Scotland case where the Supreme Court judges blatantly 'interpreted' the Equality Act 2010 in a way that flies in the face of what the people who actually drafted the law (including Melanie Field and Harriet Harman) intended it to be. They expressly drafted the sex aspects of the EA 2010 as being trans-inclusive.

I am well aware that judges have the power to set precedents in this way – but you are also well aware that Parliament is sovereign and that MPs can just as easily pass legislation that explicitly reaffirms that trans women are women, trans men are men etc to restore the Equality Act 2010 to what Parliament had actually intended. Whether a majority of MPs will do so in the current culture war is another matter – but this belief that the SC’s judgement is somehow set in stone in perpetuity is false and cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

There is also a lie being circulated by anti-trans campaigners like Sex Matters about organisations somehow being 'misled' about the law by Stonewall for 15 years. This lie is easily refuted by the fact that the EHRC itself issued guidelines to the Equality Act 2010, shortly after the Act came into force, saying that people should use the facilities that aligned with their gender. Chapter 13 of the original Code of Practice expressly states: "If a service provider provides single- or separate-sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present."

So the idea that a charity (Stonewall) had somehow bamboozled every organisation in the country with incorrect guidance is utter gibberish. It was the EHRC's own position until 2025. As the original Code of Practice has been conveniently erased from history by the present EHRC (whose board was packed with Liz Truss appointees from December 2020 with a specific remit of rolling back trans rights), I have attached the original Code of Practice document for you. The internet never forgets.

Kind regards,

[name]

There are a couple of lies being peddled by Sex Mattress and other TERF outfits about the Supreme Court ruling in FWS and the Equality Act 2010.

Lie number 1 is that the way organisations have implemented the EA 2010 since it was passed was all down to them being 'misled' by Stonewall.

Lie number 2 is that the SC ruling did not change the law, but that the EA 2010 was *always* what the SC judges now say it is.

Lie number 1 is easily refuted by the fact that the EHRC itself issued guidelines to the Equality Act 2010 in 2011, just after the Act came into force, saying that people should use the facilities that aligned with their gender. So the idea that a charity had somehow bamboozled every organisation in the country with incorrect guidance is utter gibberish. It was the EHRC's own position until 2025.

The reason that the EHRC's position changed in recent times was that Liz Truss, that well-known expert on the law, packed the EHRC's board with her own appointees (including Baroness Falkner) in 2020, with a specific remit of undermining trans rights.

The Supreme Court's "interpretation" of the Equality Act 2010 flies in the face of what the people who actually drafted the law (including Melanie Field and Harriet Harman) intended it to be. They expressly drafted the sex aspects of the EA 2010 as being trans-inclusive.

And if the law on the protected characteristic of sex had "always" been what the SC now says it is, why did the FWS case lose in all the lower courts up until it ended up in the SC?

The ruling is an example of judge-made law that goes against the intentions of the legislators. The SC does have the power to do this, unfortunately, as it is the highest court in the land. Dr Victoria McCloud, a former High Court judge herself, is taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights, where they are likely to take a very dim view of the fact that the SC judges refused to hear testimony from trans people – the very people most affected by the case. But it will take years for the case to be heard and for a ruling to be made.

But while judges can interpret laws in this fashion and set precedents in case law, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament can pass new legislation at any time to re-assert that trans women are indeed women and that trans men are indeed men. Whether the majority of MPs will actually have the backbone to do so in this heightened culture war right now is another matter. However, as I mentioned in a previous thread, there are moves afoot to form a cross-party committee to reexamine this entire mess and rectify the situation with well-drafted new legislation.

In the meantime, hold tight, remember that your protected characteristic of gender reassignment still stands, and that harassment of you is still illegal.