Latest news with #Falkner
New Statesman
7 days ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Do our politicians understand the supreme court's gender ruling?
Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images It was ironic that Sarah Owen MP opened her public questioning of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) chair by telling the public that the Women and Equalities Committee prided itself on 'listening, understanding and challenging respectfully to find progress on the matters we hold dear'. Over the two-and-a-bit hours that followed, there was little respect shown and not much listening going on at all. The hostile tone was set from the start. What was Baroness Kishwer Falkner going to do to improve the damaged reputation and loss of public trust in the EHRC, Owen asked in the session on Wednesday (11 June). Falkner responded: 'it's a real pleasure to be here… I don't think I could agree with your characterisation of the EHRC, and I hope as the time goes on in the next two hours that I will be able to prove those sentiments with hard facts.' Then the facts came: rather than trust being damaged, Falkner argued, it had rocketed under her leadership from just 35 per cent of the public holding the EHRC in a positive light when she assumed her role in 2020 to 81 per cent now. The Women and Equalities Committee, of which Owen is chair, has regular sessions with the leaders of the EHRC. This particular meeting comes after the Supreme Court's judgment in April that sex in the Equality Act 2010 meant biological sex. Predictably the judgment and the EHRC's response to it dominated proceedings. But few MPs seemed to understand what the judgment actually meant, let alone what the law is. 'Please do not be fearful,' Baroness Falkner said, explaining that in spite of the ruling, trans people are still able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination, harassment, and indirect discrimination. They had not lost any rights, she insisted, as had the Supreme Court justices. It took more than 45 minutes for the Women and Equalities Committee to mention 'women and girls'. That was left to Conservative MP Rebecca Paul, who, with Rosie Duffield, sat physically apart from and in stark contrast to the rest of the committee. 'You said trans people have not lost a right, but they have,' Catherine Fookes, Labour MP for Monmouthshire, responded. 'They've lost the right to use the toilet of their choice.' 'I think we have a slight danger here of shooting the messenger', Baroness Falkner replied, explaining to the committee that in fact that 'right' had never existed in law. 'The Equality Act has always had exemptions for separate and single-sex spaces' and that these 'limited people to using only those facilities of their biology.' 'Whose rights win?' Sarah Owen asked, trans people or women? 'Trans people' rights are not going to change,' Falkner explained again. 'Women haven't won new rights. What has happened here is that a statute – the [Equality] Act has been interpreted by the highest court in the land, and it has been clarified. The rights remain extant as they always were when Parliament… passed the Equality Act.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It took the Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, Rachel Taylor, close to eight minutes to establish that it was not – under the law – possible to have a women's only walking club that included trans women. 'I think I'm clear on your answer that if I want to set up a women's walking association that excludes cis [non-trans] men, then I cannot include transgender women. Is that what you've said?' Falkner nodded in reply. During the exchange, Owen chimed in: 'How could you tell, and how could Rachel tell whether I was a cisgendered woman or whether I was a trans woman, can you tell Baroness Faulkner by looking at me?' 'I could make an informed judgment,' the EHRC chair replied. 'Society is not based on policing outside toilets,' she continued. 'Society is based on trust', Falkner explained, 'on trust that in a workplace which provides single-sex toilets, that the people who will use those toilets will generally… abide by that.' Responding to a question from Rosie Duffield about intimidation and bullying of EHRC members, Baroness Falkner's voice faltered with emotion. 'What bothers me more than my own personal security is that our staff should be able to come to a place and work in safety', she told the committee, 'and that has been somewhat lacking in the last several years.' She began to share a 'reflection' – comparing the 'dignified, respectful' responses of women who felt their rights had been threatened, to those advocating for trans rights. Women, Falkner said, had frequently used the 'last resort of a tribunal or a court to pursue justice for themselves or their loved ones.' Yet, while appreciating that trans people were a vulnerable group, 'the level of agitation they can cause in terms of personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation,' and attacks on EHRC staff's family members stood in stark contrast. 'It has got to stop', Falkner said. During this impassioned statement, Owen cut her off, to audible gasps and shocked sighs of 'no' from some of those listening. The committee chair wanted to make sure there 'wasn't an inadvertent, unwitting tarnishing of all campaigners and activists'. Kishwer Falkner leaves the EHRC in November, as her (already extended) term ends. The government kept her in post for another year to provide stability in leadership of the equalities regulator. But the signs are that her preferred successor, Mary-Ann Stephenson, will receive no more civil a response from Owen's committee when they question her later in the year. Immediately after her candidature was announced on 5 June, trans rights activists began scouring for evidence of potential unsavoury views and behaviour. 'Dr Stephenson has a reputation for transphobia,' one Reddit user wrote, urging others to help compile a list of alleged misdemeanors. 'Please don't put vague things… it needs to be along the lines of 'she did transphobic thing X at date Y in location Z.' So far, the offences Stephenson has apparently committed include signing a couple of open letters in the Guardian in 2015 and 2017, defending the right to free speech and saying that women should not face violence for voicing their opinions, and in 2020 appearing on a podcast for feminist charity FiLiA and at a Woman's Place UK conference (where she spoke about women in the workplace). Stephenson also appears to have donated to lesbian barrister Allison Bailey's employment tribunal, in which she accused her chambers of discriminating against her for holding gender-critical beliefs, in part because it was unfairly influenced by Stonewall, Europe's largest LGBTQ charity. Even well-known trans campaigners have questioned whether this amounts to anything. 'There is no question that FiLiA has strong gender-critical tendencies, as had WPUK,' Steph Richards from TransLucent commented. 'However, FiLiA is a genuine feminist group with a wide range of campaigns. Likewise, the now-defunct WPUK was not a single-issue organisation… neither FiLiA nor WPUK are/were single-issue organisations dedicated to removing the human rights of trans people.' Regardless, a co-ordinated letter-writing campaign is underway to launch objections to Stephenson taking up the EHRC role. The clerk of the Women and Equalities Select Committee has responded almost immediately to those who have written to object, even taking the time to do so on a weekend. 'Thank you for writing to the Committee. The Committee notes your demands,' he said to one letter writer. 'The Committee expects to cover the concerns you raise when it meets with the EHRC next week,' he replied to another – something that appeared to have been borne out by the session with Baroness Falkner. In a further reply, the clerk pointed out that while 'select committees do not have power of veto in appointment hearings… if they really didn't like a candidate, a failure of the committee to support the appointment could make the government further reflect on whether to take it forwards.' To some, it might seem odd that anyone would object to Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson's candidature. She has impeccable credentials for the role: 30 years of experience working on equality and human rights issues within the UK and internationally, and a PhD in equality law. Before her current role as director of the Women's Budget Group, she has been director of the Fawcett Society, chair of the Early Education and Childcare Coalition and a board member of Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre (CRASAC). It will be up to Falkner's successor to make sure, following the Supreme Court judgment, that the new code of practice for service providers who have duties under the Equality Act is followed. The consultation on it has already received 5,000 responses, with a couple of weeks left to run. Falkner and John Kirkpatrick, the CEO of the EHRC who gave evidence alongside her, insisted they were in the mood for listening. But one thing it would not result in is a challenge to the highest court in the land. 'We are not going to issue a letter to government saying we think the Supreme Court has got this wrong and you need to establish a new Supreme Court,' Falkner made clear. 'That's not going to happen.' As MP after MP demanded to know how the EHRC was planning to win back the trust of trans people, Baroness Falkner made perhaps the most prescient point of the hostile encounter. 'I'm going to be slightly personal here,' she replied. The trans community, she said, supposedly had a great deal of trust in her predecessor, David Isaac, who had also been a chair of Stonewall. 'Perhaps we have to recognise that when people are lobbyists or advocates for a particular cause, the cause that they represent generates greater trust from that particular group.' But it was the EHRC's job to be impartial. 'Trust is something that we all want, but it is a commodity which is built up through credibility, impartiality and fairness.' If trans people accepted that the EHRC's job was to interpret the law of the land, then they will find the final code of practice is something they can trust, Falkner said. The session ended where it began, with Falkner civil, the chair, Sarah Owen otherwise. 'We're hoping that the settlement of this issue by the Supreme Court will lead to a calming down of the atmosphere,' Falkner said. Many share that hope. But committee hearings like this will certainly not help. [See more: Inside the SNP civil war] Related
Spectator
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
Glasgow Times
21-05-2025
- Health
- Glasgow Times
EHRC says people could be asked for birth certificates to prove biological sex
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published its draft guidance following the Supreme Court's ruling last month. The code of practice, which is out for public consultation for six weeks, covers a range of topics including trans people's participation in sport and use of toilets. The commission has tripled the length of time for feedback, from an original proposal of two weeks, meaning it is expected to be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July rather than June. The regulator said the consultation has been extended 'in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society'. Equality and Human Rights Commission chairwoman Baroness Falkner said it is important the code is 'an accurate interpretation of the law'(David Jones/PA) In the wake of April's Supreme Court ruling that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the commission had issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets. More detailed draft guidance was published on Tuesday, with a consultation period running until June 30, as the regulator appealed for feedback as to whether its content 'could be clearer or more helpful'. The guidance says people can be asked to confirm their birth sex so long as it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'. It cautions that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. The commission adds that if there is 'genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested'. It notes that if a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), it might be that they have an amended birth certificate in their acquired gender, and that in the 'unlikely event' further enquiries about their biological sex are needed, any 'additional requests should be made in a proportionate way which is discreet and sensitive'. Elsewhere, the draft code says trans people can be excluded from competitive sport 'when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition', and gives an example of how some services might be able to adapt to 'offer toilets in individual lockable rooms to be used by both sexes'. The code states that a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men 'is not a separate-sex or single-sex service' under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said there has been an 'obvious' demand since the court's ruling for 'authoritative guidance' for a range of providers from businesses to hospitals to sports clubs. She said: 'It is important that our code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it. 'So we want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft code where necessary. 'People with protected characteristics should never be discriminated against or harassed when using a service. Where services are provided on a single-sex basis, that needs to be done in a way which is consistent with the law, which protects the rights of all service users and which ensures everyone is treated with respect and dignity. 'It's vital that service providers know what they need to do to comply with the law, and that service users have confidence that every provider is doing so.' Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. Baroness Falkner acknowledged this is a 'complex area' of law and 'bears on the rights of people with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment'. She added: 'We know that there are strongly held views across our society, both about how the law should be interpreted and whether it reflects the right balance between those rights. So, if everybody's rights are to be protected – as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends – service providers and their legal advisers need help to navigate these challenges. 'The consultation launched today will help ensure our services Code of Practice is a useful and authoritative guide. Please tell us if you think it could be clearer or more helpful. 'That way, whether you're a shop owner or the chair of a local sports club, the manager of a hotel or a hospital, an HR professional or a solicitor, you will have guidance to follow so you can be confident that you're upholding the law.' The draft code will be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July (Ben Whitley/PA) Campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) last week announced it has taken the first step in a legal challenge against the watchdog, claiming the guidance is 'wrong in law'. But Maya Forstater, from gender-critical campaign group charity Sex Matters, said the commission's guidance is clear. She said: 'The draft EHRC guidance reflects the law as clarified by the Supreme Court, so there can be no more excuses for failing to follow it. 'Its clear language and calm, factual tone are a welcome antidote after weeks in which trans lobby groups have sought to present the ruling as complicated and dangerous.'
Leader Live
20-05-2025
- Health
- Leader Live
EHRC says people could be asked for birth certificates to prove biological sex
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published its draft guidance following the Supreme Court's ruling last month. The code of practice, which is out for public consultation for six weeks, covers a range of topics including trans people's participation in sport and use of toilets. The commission has tripled the length of time for feedback, from an original proposal of two weeks, meaning it is expected to be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July rather than June. The regulator said the consultation has been extended 'in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society'. Equality and Human Rights Commission chairwoman Baroness Falkner said it is important the code is 'an accurate interpretation of the law'(David Jones/PA) In the wake of April's Supreme Court ruling that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the commission had issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets. More detailed draft guidance was published on Tuesday, with a consultation period running until June 30, as the regulator appealed for feedback as to whether its content 'could be clearer or more helpful'. The guidance says people can be asked to confirm their birth sex so long as it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'. It cautions that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. The commission adds that if there is 'genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested'. It notes that if a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), it might be that they have an amended birth certificate in their acquired gender, and that in the 'unlikely event' further enquiries about their biological sex are needed, any 'additional requests should be made in a proportionate way which is discreet and sensitive'. Elsewhere, the draft code says trans people can be excluded from competitive sport 'when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition', and gives an example of how some services might be able to adapt to 'offer toilets in individual lockable rooms to be used by both sexes'. The code states that a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men 'is not a separate-sex or single-sex service' under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said there has been an 'obvious' demand since the court's ruling for 'authoritative guidance' for a range of providers from businesses to hospitals to sports clubs. She said: 'It is important that our code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it. 'So we want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft code where necessary. 'People with protected characteristics should never be discriminated against or harassed when using a service. Where services are provided on a single-sex basis, that needs to be done in a way which is consistent with the law, which protects the rights of all service users and which ensures everyone is treated with respect and dignity. 'It's vital that service providers know what they need to do to comply with the law, and that service users have confidence that every provider is doing so.' Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. Baroness Falkner acknowledged this is a 'complex area' of law and 'bears on the rights of people with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment'. She added: 'We know that there are strongly held views across our society, both about how the law should be interpreted and whether it reflects the right balance between those rights. So, if everybody's rights are to be protected – as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends – service providers and their legal advisers need help to navigate these challenges. 'The consultation launched today will help ensure our services Code of Practice is a useful and authoritative guide. Please tell us if you think it could be clearer or more helpful. 'That way, whether you're a shop owner or the chair of a local sports club, the manager of a hotel or a hospital, an HR professional or a solicitor, you will have guidance to follow so you can be confident that you're upholding the law.' The draft code will be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July (Ben Whitley/PA) Campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) last week announced it has taken the first step in a legal challenge against the watchdog, claiming the guidance is 'wrong in law'. But Maya Forstater, from gender-critical campaign group charity Sex Matters, said the commission's guidance is clear. She said: 'The draft EHRC guidance reflects the law as clarified by the Supreme Court, so there can be no more excuses for failing to follow it. 'Its clear language and calm, factual tone are a welcome antidote after weeks in which trans lobby groups have sought to present the ruling as complicated and dangerous.'
Western Telegraph
20-05-2025
- Health
- Western Telegraph
EHRC says people could be asked for birth certificates to prove biological sex
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published its draft guidance following the Supreme Court's ruling last month. The code of practice, which is out for public consultation for six weeks, covers a range of topics including trans people's participation in sport and use of toilets. The commission has tripled the length of time for feedback, from an original proposal of two weeks, meaning it is expected to be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July rather than June. The regulator said the consultation has been extended 'in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society'. Equality and Human Rights Commission chairwoman Baroness Falkner said it is important the code is 'an accurate interpretation of the law'(David Jones/PA) In the wake of April's Supreme Court ruling that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the commission had issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets. More detailed draft guidance was published on Tuesday, with a consultation period running until June 30, as the regulator appealed for feedback as to whether its content 'could be clearer or more helpful'. The guidance says people can be asked to confirm their birth sex so long as it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'. It cautions that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. The commission adds that if there is 'genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested'. It notes that if a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), it might be that they have an amended birth certificate in their acquired gender, and that in the 'unlikely event' further enquiries about their biological sex are needed, any 'additional requests should be made in a proportionate way which is discreet and sensitive'. Elsewhere, the draft code says trans people can be excluded from competitive sport 'when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition', and gives an example of how some services might be able to adapt to 'offer toilets in individual lockable rooms to be used by both sexes'. The code states that a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men 'is not a separate-sex or single-sex service' under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. We want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft code where necessary Baroness Falkner, Equality and Human Rights Commission Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said there has been an 'obvious' demand since the court's ruling for 'authoritative guidance' for a range of providers from businesses to hospitals to sports clubs. She said: 'It is important that our code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it. 'So we want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft code where necessary. 'People with protected characteristics should never be discriminated against or harassed when using a service. Where services are provided on a single-sex basis, that needs to be done in a way which is consistent with the law, which protects the rights of all service users and which ensures everyone is treated with respect and dignity. 'It's vital that service providers know what they need to do to comply with the law, and that service users have confidence that every provider is doing so.' Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. If everybody's rights are to be protected – as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends – service providers and their legal advisers need help to navigate these challenges Baroness Falkner, Equality and Human Rights Commission Baroness Falkner acknowledged this is a 'complex area' of law and 'bears on the rights of people with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment'. She added: 'We know that there are strongly held views across our society, both about how the law should be interpreted and whether it reflects the right balance between those rights. So, if everybody's rights are to be protected – as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends – service providers and their legal advisers need help to navigate these challenges. 'The consultation launched today will help ensure our services Code of Practice is a useful and authoritative guide. Please tell us if you think it could be clearer or more helpful. 'That way, whether you're a shop owner or the chair of a local sports club, the manager of a hotel or a hospital, an HR professional or a solicitor, you will have guidance to follow so you can be confident that you're upholding the law.' The draft code will be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July (Ben Whitley/PA) Campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) last week announced it has taken the first step in a legal challenge against the watchdog, claiming the guidance is 'wrong in law'. But Maya Forstater, from gender-critical campaign group charity Sex Matters, said the commission's guidance is clear. She said: 'The draft EHRC guidance reflects the law as clarified by the Supreme Court, so there can be no more excuses for failing to follow it. 'Its clear language and calm, factual tone are a welcome antidote after weeks in which trans lobby groups have sought to present the ruling as complicated and dangerous.'
