Thank you for standing up for what is right, Robin. It’s a sad state of affairs when defending inclusion is incompatible with working for the BBC and it reflects badly on a once-great organisation. I hope you find some work from a more enlightened broadcaster. The trans community salutes you! Xx

4/ It was also ruled that aggressively challenging trans women using female facilities is harassment. Anti-trans campaigners' baseless claims that trans women pose a greater risk to women in changing areas or toilets than that posed by cis women were also rejected.

3/ This isn’t about who can shout their culture war opinions the loudest. The law has always been clear: it is not inherently unlawful for a trans woman to be permitted to use female facilities at work. Employers must think carefully about how they balance everyone’s rights.

2/ The former Chair of the EHRC can grind her axe in the press all she likes, but these rulings drive a coach and horses through her unworkable, unfair, and potentially unlawful guidance. They also show the Secretary of State is absolutely right to seek her own legal advice.

Thank you so much for your allyship!

The opportunity cost of all the wasted effort that was required to leave the EU, only to find it absolutely didn’t address any of the nation’s ills, when that could’ve been spent fixing real issues, & the cost it will take to one day rejoin. People should be in gaol; instead some are running for PM.

The ET states that excluding trans people from both male and female changing rooms "is clearly liable to amount to indirect discrimination, which is likely to be very hard indeed to justify as proportionate" [811].

The ET also points out that certain comments in FWS assume that trans women might be able to use female-only facilities [804-804].

They also comment that they think the principle established in Croft is still valid, and was not overturned by FWS or the GRA. Which is what we argued before the HC.

The ET also addresses the nonsense implications that would result from a strictly biologically sex-segregated world, where women can no longer bring their male children into the women's loos with them, and where cleaning staff cannot go into changing rooms. They say this would not be "workable".

Huge! The ET then goes on to analyse at [798] just how significantly trans people's rights would be impacted if this were the case.

"If [...] all trans persons must be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets for the sex they identify with because it was not the sex assigned at birth, & may also be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets of their biological sex, that in our view certainly does impact on their rights..."

In fact, the ET said what Peggie was arguing was incompatible with the decision in FWS, where the SC emphasised that their interpretation of sex under the Act would *not* disadvantage trans people.

Pretty clear! The ET says that the Supreme Court "did not seek to address that question" which was "unsurprising, as it was not the question before it" [790].

Furthermore, the ET said that neither the SC or EA say that certain protected characteristics take precedence over any other [791-795]

[789] "The question [...] is whether the application of [FWS] must mean that [...] a [trans woman is] required to be excluded from the female changing room, such that the permission given by [her employer] to do so was necessarily unlawful [...] We have concluded that the answer is in the negative."

Of course ET decisions are not binding. But this is the second ET judgment we have had in recent days which suggests that anti-trans campaigners have been grossly misstating the law in this area.

The ET states it plainly - FWS does not require a trans bathroom ban.