The WESC Chair is a pure embarrassment. Brings @uklabour.bsky.social into disrepute.

So there it is.
S195 makes it lawful to provide single sex sports or activities of a competitive nature (@parkrunUK @LondonMarathon) if the activity is sex-affected. All males, including transwomen, can be excluded from female categories on the basis of sex.

I am surprised to see you posting about this shambolic performance. You displayed ignorance of the Supreme Court ruling - e.g. not having read its many references to sport - and highly unprofessional rudeness to Baroness Falkner, even interrupting her when she was responding to a sensitive question.

'The Supreme Court judgement was purely about positions on boards it wasn't actually talking about sport or toilets'.
What?
There is a whole section in the judgement about sport.
@sarahowen.org.uk does not know what she is talking about & she chaired a session discussing the SC ruling.
Appalling.

Your advocacy on behalf of trans activist organisations pushing 'over-reach' or 'male entitlement' is clearly asymmetrically sympathetic to males at the expense of females. Aka 21st century patriarchy where males are valued more highly than females & accrue more power & empathy. Very disappointing.

The Supreme Court highlighted in particular the detriments to female people (lesbians & transmen) of a 'certificated sex' interpretation of the law. Lesbians would have to include male lesbians in same sex attracted services & associations. TM would lose right to pregnancy & maternity protections.

Baroness Falkner EHRC Chair was absolutely outstanding. The Supreme Court judgement & EHRC Interim Update provide absolute clarity. No males (regardless of identity) in female single sex services & sports. Women's and lesbian's rights matter too. Please remember that given your position.

As a @uklabour.bsky.social member I'm appalled with your hostile Chairing of this session. Please remember this Committee's remit is Women & Equalities. You clearly do not understand the law. The Supreme Court ruling was not just about membership of boards. It was about the meaning of sex in the EA.

Your post was hidden for intolerance by the troons...

This headline is misleading

The SC ruling means that it is a point of law that they didn't exist before.

Your presentation of the comments was staggeringly dishonest. The trans rights movement attempted to arrogate themselves rights they had not been granted in law by disseminating a false interpretation of the law.

Notable that Peter Walker has changed the headline and also the quote which it refers to in the article, but has not entered any explanation for doing so in the article footer, as is standard practice. Nor has their been any update time info on the timestamps.

This is why no one pays for your propaganda anymore. These are lies. ‘Trans’ people’s rights haven’t been reduced & this isn’t what EHRC said at all. This isn’t journalism, this is activism and you clearly are under the thumb of your American paymasters. x.com/akuareindorf...

Why this incendiary headline? You are stoking the flames of the culture wars instead of putting them out @theguardian.com

Sources: The Office of National Statistics and HM Prisons - statistics about offending patterns found to be also replicated across the western world

So you're aware of how risks are calculated the?

The Equality Act does not require case-by-case assessment to apply ordinary sex-based rules.

It does not give trans-identifying people the right to use single and separate sex services for the opposite sex.

Read Sex Matters' guidance

sex-matters.org/wp-content/u...

The principles are simple.

There are different ways of providing services.

The Equality Act provides for all of them when they are a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.