sofia
@solidarityqueer.bsky.social
chronically disappointed optimist
vote green 🏴 | 🏳️⚧️ she/her
vote green 🏴 | 🏳️⚧️ she/her
I completely agree, and until the GLP v EHRC case and the Minister's skeleton argument, I felt the same. But now I believe most people know the EHRC approach is unworkable, otherwise the minister would have supported the EHRC.
November 15, 2025 at 7:16 PM
I completely agree, and until the GLP v EHRC case and the Minister's skeleton argument, I felt the same. But now I believe most people know the EHRC approach is unworkable, otherwise the minister would have supported the EHRC.
yes! she won 💟 that's the case i'm referring to in the thread
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b82c...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b82c...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
November 15, 2025 at 7:07 PM
yes! she won 💟 that's the case i'm referring to in the thread
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b82c...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b82c...
2/
if a trans woman is treated as a woman and discriminated against on that basis, the fact she’s later outed doesn’t let the employer rewrite their motive. The law looks at why the discrimination happened at the time, not what people find out afterwards.
if a trans woman is treated as a woman and discriminated against on that basis, the fact she’s later outed doesn’t let the employer rewrite their motive. The law looks at why the discrimination happened at the time, not what people find out afterwards.
November 15, 2025 at 6:59 PM
2/
if a trans woman is treated as a woman and discriminated against on that basis, the fact she’s later outed doesn’t let the employer rewrite their motive. The law looks at why the discrimination happened at the time, not what people find out afterwards.
if a trans woman is treated as a woman and discriminated against on that basis, the fact she’s later outed doesn’t let the employer rewrite their motive. The law looks at why the discrimination happened at the time, not what people find out afterwards.
1/ A straight man can win a homophobia case if colleagues thought he was gay and targeted him for it. His actual sexuality doesn’t matter - the perceived reason for the abuse does.
November 15, 2025 at 6:59 PM
1/ A straight man can win a homophobia case if colleagues thought he was gay and targeted him for it. His actual sexuality doesn’t matter - the perceived reason for the abuse does.
Do you mean outed as trans after the discrimination took place or before? (sorry)
November 15, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Do you mean outed as trans after the discrimination took place or before? (sorry)
22/
And where a trans woman is treated as a woman, demeaned as a woman, or excluded as a woman, the law still recognises that as sex discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruling did nothing to change that principle.
And where a trans woman is treated as a woman, demeaned as a woman, or excluded as a woman, the law still recognises that as sex discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruling did nothing to change that principle.
November 15, 2025 at 6:42 PM
22/
And where a trans woman is treated as a woman, demeaned as a woman, or excluded as a woman, the law still recognises that as sex discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruling did nothing to change that principle.
And where a trans woman is treated as a woman, demeaned as a woman, or excluded as a woman, the law still recognises that as sex discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruling did nothing to change that principle.
21/
So the real-world effect of the Supreme Court judgment is limited.
It clarified how “sex” is defined in Section 11.
But in discrimination cases - including Sophie Cole’s - the factual question remains:
What was the reason for the treatment?
So the real-world effect of the Supreme Court judgment is limited.
It clarified how “sex” is defined in Section 11.
But in discrimination cases - including Sophie Cole’s - the factual question remains:
What was the reason for the treatment?
November 15, 2025 at 6:41 PM
21/
So the real-world effect of the Supreme Court judgment is limited.
It clarified how “sex” is defined in Section 11.
But in discrimination cases - including Sophie Cole’s - the factual question remains:
What was the reason for the treatment?
So the real-world effect of the Supreme Court judgment is limited.
It clarified how “sex” is defined in Section 11.
But in discrimination cases - including Sophie Cole’s - the factual question remains:
What was the reason for the treatment?
20/
The Equality Act has always required individualised assessment, not blanket assumptions.
It has always protected trans people under gender reassignment.
And it has always allowed sex discrimination claims based on how someone is treated and perceived.
The Equality Act has always required individualised assessment, not blanket assumptions.
It has always protected trans people under gender reassignment.
And it has always allowed sex discrimination claims based on how someone is treated and perceived.
November 15, 2025 at 6:41 PM
20/
The Equality Act has always required individualised assessment, not blanket assumptions.
It has always protected trans people under gender reassignment.
And it has always allowed sex discrimination claims based on how someone is treated and perceived.
The Equality Act has always required individualised assessment, not blanket assumptions.
It has always protected trans people under gender reassignment.
And it has always allowed sex discrimination claims based on how someone is treated and perceived.
19/
This is why the EHRC’s interim update was so controversial.
It treated the Supreme Court ruling as if it created a new rule where trans inclusion automatically undermines “single-sex” status.
But the Court did not say that.
This is why the EHRC’s interim update was so controversial.
It treated the Supreme Court ruling as if it created a new rule where trans inclusion automatically undermines “single-sex” status.
But the Court did not say that.
November 15, 2025 at 6:41 PM
19/
This is why the EHRC’s interim update was so controversial.
It treated the Supreme Court ruling as if it created a new rule where trans inclusion automatically undermines “single-sex” status.
But the Court did not say that.
This is why the EHRC’s interim update was so controversial.
It treated the Supreme Court ruling as if it created a new rule where trans inclusion automatically undermines “single-sex” status.
But the Court did not say that.
18/
Equally important:
The ruling did not alter the structure of Schedule 3 (single-sex services).
Service providers must still justify any exclusion on a case-by-case basis using the “proportionate means to a legitimate aim” test.
Equally important:
The ruling did not alter the structure of Schedule 3 (single-sex services).
Service providers must still justify any exclusion on a case-by-case basis using the “proportionate means to a legitimate aim” test.
November 15, 2025 at 6:40 PM
18/
Equally important:
The ruling did not alter the structure of Schedule 3 (single-sex services).
Service providers must still justify any exclusion on a case-by-case basis using the “proportionate means to a legitimate aim” test.
Equally important:
The ruling did not alter the structure of Schedule 3 (single-sex services).
Service providers must still justify any exclusion on a case-by-case basis using the “proportionate means to a legitimate aim” test.
17/
Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling prevents a trans woman from establishing that she was mistreated as a woman.
And nothing in the ruling prevents tribunals from recognising sex discrimination that operates through social perception.
Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling prevents a trans woman from establishing that she was mistreated as a woman.
And nothing in the ruling prevents tribunals from recognising sex discrimination that operates through social perception.
November 15, 2025 at 6:40 PM
17/
Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling prevents a trans woman from establishing that she was mistreated as a woman.
And nothing in the ruling prevents tribunals from recognising sex discrimination that operates through social perception.
Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling prevents a trans woman from establishing that she was mistreated as a woman.
And nothing in the ruling prevents tribunals from recognising sex discrimination that operates through social perception.
16/
So the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Royal Mail judgment are perfectly consistent.
Biological sex defines the characteristic in Section 11,
but the application of discrimination law depends on treatment, perception, and the factual basis for the complaint.
So the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Royal Mail judgment are perfectly consistent.
Biological sex defines the characteristic in Section 11,
but the application of discrimination law depends on treatment, perception, and the factual basis for the complaint.
November 15, 2025 at 6:40 PM
16/
So the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Royal Mail judgment are perfectly consistent.
Biological sex defines the characteristic in Section 11,
but the application of discrimination law depends on treatment, perception, and the factual basis for the complaint.
So the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Royal Mail judgment are perfectly consistent.
Biological sex defines the characteristic in Section 11,
but the application of discrimination law depends on treatment, perception, and the factual basis for the complaint.
15/
That’s why trans women can still bring sex discrimination claims.
If a trans woman is treated or perceived as a woman, and she suffers detriment on that basis, she can rely on the sex discrimination provisions - even though Section 11 uses biological definitions.
That’s why trans women can still bring sex discrimination claims.
If a trans woman is treated or perceived as a woman, and she suffers detriment on that basis, she can rely on the sex discrimination provisions - even though Section 11 uses biological definitions.
November 15, 2025 at 6:39 PM
15/
That’s why trans women can still bring sex discrimination claims.
If a trans woman is treated or perceived as a woman, and she suffers detriment on that basis, she can rely on the sex discrimination provisions - even though Section 11 uses biological definitions.
That’s why trans women can still bring sex discrimination claims.
If a trans woman is treated or perceived as a woman, and she suffers detriment on that basis, she can rely on the sex discrimination provisions - even though Section 11 uses biological definitions.
14/
Crucially, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that this interpretation does not strip trans people of protections.
They clarified that discrimination law still depends on how a person is treated and how they are perceived, not solely on biological attributes.
Crucially, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that this interpretation does not strip trans people of protections.
They clarified that discrimination law still depends on how a person is treated and how they are perceived, not solely on biological attributes.
November 15, 2025 at 6:38 PM
14/
Crucially, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that this interpretation does not strip trans people of protections.
They clarified that discrimination law still depends on how a person is treated and how they are perceived, not solely on biological attributes.
Crucially, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that this interpretation does not strip trans people of protections.
They clarified that discrimination law still depends on how a person is treated and how they are perceived, not solely on biological attributes.
13/
The Supreme Court’s decision dealt with only one part of the Equality Act:
Section 11, which defines the protected characteristic of sex.
The Court said the words “man” and “woman” in this definition mean "biological male" and "biological female".
The Supreme Court’s decision dealt with only one part of the Equality Act:
Section 11, which defines the protected characteristic of sex.
The Court said the words “man” and “woman” in this definition mean "biological male" and "biological female".
November 15, 2025 at 6:38 PM
13/
The Supreme Court’s decision dealt with only one part of the Equality Act:
Section 11, which defines the protected characteristic of sex.
The Court said the words “man” and “woman” in this definition mean "biological male" and "biological female".
The Supreme Court’s decision dealt with only one part of the Equality Act:
Section 11, which defines the protected characteristic of sex.
The Court said the words “man” and “woman” in this definition mean "biological male" and "biological female".
12/
This definitional ruling was very narrow.
It did not rewrite the entire Equality Act.
It did not remove protections for trans people.
It did not change how discrimination claims work in practice.
And it did not touch Schedule 3 single-sex exceptions.
This definitional ruling was very narrow.
It did not rewrite the entire Equality Act.
It did not remove protections for trans people.
It did not change how discrimination claims work in practice.
And it did not touch Schedule 3 single-sex exceptions.
November 15, 2025 at 6:37 PM
12/
This definitional ruling was very narrow.
It did not rewrite the entire Equality Act.
It did not remove protections for trans people.
It did not change how discrimination claims work in practice.
And it did not touch Schedule 3 single-sex exceptions.
This definitional ruling was very narrow.
It did not rewrite the entire Equality Act.
It did not remove protections for trans people.
It did not change how discrimination claims work in practice.
And it did not touch Schedule 3 single-sex exceptions.
11/
The Royal Mail case shows the reality:
Trans women can be women for the purpose of sex discrimination law, because discrimination depends on perception and treatment.
The EHRC’s stance ignored that - and that’s why it’s under intense scrutiny now.
The Royal Mail case shows the reality:
Trans women can be women for the purpose of sex discrimination law, because discrimination depends on perception and treatment.
The EHRC’s stance ignored that - and that’s why it’s under intense scrutiny now.
November 15, 2025 at 6:35 PM
11/
The Royal Mail case shows the reality:
Trans women can be women for the purpose of sex discrimination law, because discrimination depends on perception and treatment.
The EHRC’s stance ignored that - and that’s why it’s under intense scrutiny now.
The Royal Mail case shows the reality:
Trans women can be women for the purpose of sex discrimination law, because discrimination depends on perception and treatment.
The EHRC’s stance ignored that - and that’s why it’s under intense scrutiny now.
10/
This contradiction is a big part of why their guidance was withdrawn.
It didn’t reflect how the Equality Act actually works, how tribunals apply it, or what the Supreme Court said.
The law is built around context, not blanket categories.
This contradiction is a big part of why their guidance was withdrawn.
It didn’t reflect how the Equality Act actually works, how tribunals apply it, or what the Supreme Court said.
The law is built around context, not blanket categories.
November 15, 2025 at 6:35 PM
10/
This contradiction is a big part of why their guidance was withdrawn.
It didn’t reflect how the Equality Act actually works, how tribunals apply it, or what the Supreme Court said.
The law is built around context, not blanket categories.
This contradiction is a big part of why their guidance was withdrawn.
It didn’t reflect how the Equality Act actually works, how tribunals apply it, or what the Supreme Court said.
The law is built around context, not blanket categories.
9/
The EHRC effectively tried to introduce a rule where trans women are:
• women when suing for discrimination
but
• men when accessing everyday services
That’s not just unfair - it’s legally incoherent.
The EHRC effectively tried to introduce a rule where trans women are:
• women when suing for discrimination
but
• men when accessing everyday services
That’s not just unfair - it’s legally incoherent.
November 15, 2025 at 6:34 PM
9/
The EHRC effectively tried to introduce a rule where trans women are:
• women when suing for discrimination
but
• men when accessing everyday services
That’s not just unfair - it’s legally incoherent.
The EHRC effectively tried to introduce a rule where trans women are:
• women when suing for discrimination
but
• men when accessing everyday services
That’s not just unfair - it’s legally incoherent.
8/
So we end up with a clear picture:
• Tribunals recognise trans women as women for discrimination claims.
• The Equality Act requires case-by-case proportionality.
• The Supreme Court didn’t change that.
• But the EHRC guidance ignored all of it.
So we end up with a clear picture:
• Tribunals recognise trans women as women for discrimination claims.
• The Equality Act requires case-by-case proportionality.
• The Supreme Court didn’t change that.
• But the EHRC guidance ignored all of it.
November 15, 2025 at 6:34 PM
8/
So we end up with a clear picture:
• Tribunals recognise trans women as women for discrimination claims.
• The Equality Act requires case-by-case proportionality.
• The Supreme Court didn’t change that.
• But the EHRC guidance ignored all of it.
So we end up with a clear picture:
• Tribunals recognise trans women as women for discrimination claims.
• The Equality Act requires case-by-case proportionality.
• The Supreme Court didn’t change that.
• But the EHRC guidance ignored all of it.
7/
In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said their ruling does not remove protections from trans people.
They acknowledged that discrimination relies on treatment and perception, not "biology" alone.
That’s exactly how the Royal Mail case worked.
In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said their ruling does not remove protections from trans people.
They acknowledged that discrimination relies on treatment and perception, not "biology" alone.
That’s exactly how the Royal Mail case worked.
November 15, 2025 at 6:34 PM
7/
In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said their ruling does not remove protections from trans people.
They acknowledged that discrimination relies on treatment and perception, not "biology" alone.
That’s exactly how the Royal Mail case worked.
In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said their ruling does not remove protections from trans people.
They acknowledged that discrimination relies on treatment and perception, not "biology" alone.
That’s exactly how the Royal Mail case worked.
6/
The Supreme Court ruling in April didn’t justify this either.
It only clarified how “sex” is defined in one section of the Act.
It didn’t say trans women lose protections.
It didn’t say trans women can’t be treated as women for legal analysis.
The Supreme Court ruling in April didn’t justify this either.
It only clarified how “sex” is defined in one section of the Act.
It didn’t say trans women lose protections.
It didn’t say trans women can’t be treated as women for legal analysis.
November 15, 2025 at 6:33 PM
6/
The Supreme Court ruling in April didn’t justify this either.
It only clarified how “sex” is defined in one section of the Act.
It didn’t say trans women lose protections.
It didn’t say trans women can’t be treated as women for legal analysis.
The Supreme Court ruling in April didn’t justify this either.
It only clarified how “sex” is defined in one section of the Act.
It didn’t say trans women lose protections.
It didn’t say trans women can’t be treated as women for legal analysis.
5/
That’s a contradiction the Equality Act simply doesn’t support.
You can’t treat someone as a woman when they’re being discriminated against, but as a man when they’re trying to avoid discrimination.
The law doesn’t work on that kind of switch-off logic.
That’s a contradiction the Equality Act simply doesn’t support.
You can’t treat someone as a woman when they’re being discriminated against, but as a man when they’re trying to avoid discrimination.
The law doesn’t work on that kind of switch-off logic.
November 15, 2025 at 6:33 PM
5/
That’s a contradiction the Equality Act simply doesn’t support.
You can’t treat someone as a woman when they’re being discriminated against, but as a man when they’re trying to avoid discrimination.
The law doesn’t work on that kind of switch-off logic.
That’s a contradiction the Equality Act simply doesn’t support.
You can’t treat someone as a woman when they’re being discriminated against, but as a man when they’re trying to avoid discrimination.
The law doesn’t work on that kind of switch-off logic.
4/
Now look at the EHRC’s interim guidance.
It implied that letting a trans woman into a women’s space undermines the idea of a “single-sex service”.
So they effectively said:
“She’s a woman when harmed, but a man when she needs access.”
Now look at the EHRC’s interim guidance.
It implied that letting a trans woman into a women’s space undermines the idea of a “single-sex service”.
So they effectively said:
“She’s a woman when harmed, but a man when she needs access.”
November 15, 2025 at 6:33 PM
4/
Now look at the EHRC’s interim guidance.
It implied that letting a trans woman into a women’s space undermines the idea of a “single-sex service”.
So they effectively said:
“She’s a woman when harmed, but a man when she needs access.”
Now look at the EHRC’s interim guidance.
It implied that letting a trans woman into a women’s space undermines the idea of a “single-sex service”.
So they effectively said:
“She’s a woman when harmed, but a man when she needs access.”