Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for 8 years. Published 3 November 2021. She tweets at @carolinefff

Last week the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that it remains captured by gender ideology.

The EHRC announced that it has signed a legal agreement with Jaguar Land Rover to improve Jaguar's ‘policies and practices in relation to equality and diversity’. ‘Jaguar Land Rover have agreed to develop an action plan to prevent future breaches of equality law and we will monitor the action plan to ensure these actions are completed within the agreed timescales’.

This arises from a case brought against Jaguar by a trans-identifying employee in late 2020. The case illustrates what companies - and fellow employees - must now wrestle with when confronted by adherents to gender ideology. Maya Forstater wrote about the case here. I quote from her but encourage you to read her full piece.

'Sean Taylor had worked at Jaguar Land Rover as an engineer for 20 years. He was based at Gaydon – a complex with some 13,000 staff... In March 2017 Taylor told HR that he was transgender... He said he wished to dress in a male style on some days and a female style on others...'

The case against Jaguar revolved around toilet use and interpersonal interactions which Taylor interpreted as harrassment.

Regarding toilet usage 'On 24 May 2017 Taylor met with his manager ... [who said] that Taylor should use the disabled toilets... On 19 September 2017 Taylor sent an email to a manager, saying: “I don’t know what toilet to use, I raised this three times with no progress over six weeks. I spoke to HR twice about moving as part of the transition at work, but this was ignored.”.. On 11 October 2017, in a grievance meeting, Taylor again raised the toilet issue, saying: “I am transgender, and I struggle with what toilet I should use…I understand it is difficult to resolve but I am not having any feedback and who will fix it?”... Finally... there were a series of discussions between local management and HR, and it was decided to allow Taylor to use whatever toilets he wanted on any given day:..'

Let it sink in that the Employment Tribunal was not satisfied with Taylor being given full access to the female toilets. It said that Jaguar should have put in place measures to ‘prevent her having to deal with challenges over the toilets she was using’. (Please note that Taylor continued to use his male name throughout this whole period.)

The judgement also concluded that Taylor had been subjected to harassment. A sample of interactions:

• A male colleague: “In Gaydon today and noticed the great outfit”.
• A male colleague: “Are you not fem today?” He went on to say that he had trans and lesbian friends and that the Claimant was “very brave”. 
• A female colleague: “I was checking out your dress, saw it was you and my jaw dropped”.
• A male colleague: “How do you get around in them? It looks hard work.” [presumably referring to shoes]
• A female colleague: “It’s nice to see you here in your attire. You have cracking legs”.

There were some hurtful comments and banter: ‘The trans community ought to be grateful. Some of their antics have nearly damned near turned me TERF.’ 

The Employment Tribunal called these comments “a sustained course of wholly unacceptable harassment in the workplace”. One wonders how work colleagues are supposed to react to a colleague 'transitioning' after 20 years. Is the only risk-free option silence? And what if a woman objects to a man in the women's loos? Is she allowed to speak? Or would that risk her, her job? 

The full judgement can be read here.

Well now Jaguar has reached a legal agreement with the EHRC over how to improve its policies and practices. This is important because there have been very significant developments that should bear on the agreement. I was keen to see the EHRC embrace them to provide guidance for all employers - and fellow employees, including gender critical women. 

With respect to toilets, the Equality Act is clear that the provision of single sex facilities is legitimate if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. While Stonewall and other gender-ideology lobby groups have sought to undermine employers’ confidence in invoking these clauses, Liz Truss, has made clear she wants single sex spaces protected. The Government has also specifically confirmed that it will require office spaces and public buildings to maintain single sex toilets. 

So when the EHRC puts out a press release covering this very issue you’d expect to see clear confirmation that employers, including Jaguar, can (must?) provide single sex spaces.  What did it say? Absolutely nothing.

Secondly, we have had the Maya Forstater case which has protected gender critical beliefs in the workplace. So here was the chance for the EHRC to provide examples, for all employers as well as Jaguar, of how these beliefs can legitimately be expressed in the workplace. For example, how should a female Jaguar employee have raised concerns about Taylor's access to the women's toilets? We need to know. Again, from the EHRC, absolutely nothing.

Instead, the EHRC is proud to share that Jaguar remains signed up to Stonewall. 'A spokesperson for Jaguar said “Since 2017 we have made good progress on our Diversity and Inclusion initiatives including launching our PRIDE employee network and achieving ongoing annual improvements in our Stonewall Workplace Equality Index rating”'.

The EHRC is uncomfortable acknowledging that we all have a birth sex. “Ms Taylor had worked at Jaguar Land Rover for almost 20 years as an engineer and had previously presented as male, before coming out as gender fluid or non-binary. She now identifies as a woman”.  No EHRC - he was a male. Also - you can't just 'identify' as a woman. The EHRC cheerfully undermines basic science and established language.

Then the EHRC shares a blog by its ominously titled ‘Head of Enforcement’ Jenine Gill. Forstater gets a mention! ‘Whilst the freedom to hold a ‘gender critical’ belief is protected by law, this does not mean that trans people can be subjected to discrimination and harassment’.  At last - here comes the guidance on how this can be navigated - from the organisation paid millions to provide us with this guidance... No - absolutely nothing...

Gill's blog points companies to publications to help them navigate their ‘equalities’ obligations. The glossary to one explains that we have Self-ID in this country: ‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. No legal or medical process is required’.  This is being circulated by the EHRC now. I despair. 

The Jaguar case is the perfect example of how gender ideology threatens women's rights, including our right to single sex spaces and to free speech. Recently, there have been very significant developments in both of these areas in policy and in case law - developments that balance protected characteristics and protect women's rights. The Jaguar case handed the EHRC the perfect opportunity to explore these developments and to illustrate how they can be baked into workplace practices across the country. This is what women are desperately waiting for - women who are afraid of losing their jobs simply for speaking the thruth and defending their rights. Employers are waiting too. The EHRC failed at this task.

Is the EHRC currently fit for purpose? From me, it’s a no.