Debunked by the Press Association.

You liked it then? 😉

Indeed, and Lord’s ‘analysis’ is wrong, as the Supreme Court judgment makes clear:

Consultation is welcome, though it’s strange that this didn’t happen when the decision was made in 2017 to officially welcome trans-identified males into the women’s pond.

Here’s what the Supreme Court actually said about legal exclusions based on sex, with regard to swimming areas:

The survey made no sense. The majority of respondents want to let trans-identified men use the women’s ponds - but they don’t want the ponds to be mixed sex?! 🤦‍♂️🤔

Because the Equality Act 2010 defines woman as being biological, not a case of self-id or even possessing a GRC. And in its recent ruling, the Supreme Court gave changing rooms as one example where single-sex facilities would be lawful.

Wishing harm upon JK Rowling is the 21st century's socially acceptable way of being a misogynist.

The High Court didn’t “side with thousands of swimmers“. It didn’t express an opinion on the lawfulness of the current policy; it said a challenge was inappropriate at this time while the City of London decided whether or not it was going to change its policy.

Article is full of mistakes. The EHRC guidance will never be legally binding - but the EA2010 is legally binding right now. Despite the headline, the CC is clearly telling organisations to seek their own legal advice i.e. obey the law.