Why the EHRC won’t help the government define sex as biological
by Carys Moseley, Christian Concern:
Public Policy Researcher Carys Moseley on how the EHRC is compromised on sex and gender recognition.
Baroness Falkner, the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, recently wrote in the Times about the need for a biological definition of sex in law.
The EHRC revealed that the Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch had asked the EHRC for advice on defining sex in the Equality Act 2010. But the available evidence strongly suggests that the EHRC is incapable of giving the government sound advice on this matter. Indeed, the available evidence needs far more open and robust debate than is currently the case.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s initial advice
The Equality and Human Rights Commission then published its reply to the government, which you can read in full here. It says that defining ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 as biological “could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.”
It recommended that the government conduct legal and policy analysis on the issue in accordance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. (The PSED is enshrined in law as part of the Equality Act 2010.) It also said this should be done “with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.” The EHRC claimed such work would be welcomed by “the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.” This suggests that insisting on the primacy of biological sex is considered as one-sided and ‘polarising’, i.e. narrow and extremist.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
