The EHRC are political appointments that were selected for agreeing with the politics of the previous government.
That’s why they sound like anti trans activists.
The whole thing needs to be burnt down. There’s no room for political appointees in legal bodies.
The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.
It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion, and pushing dubious recommendations to government departments.
She’s a TERF that the Tories put in place (Boris Johnson, 2020). It’s utterly absurd that the head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is against equality.
Her contract ends in November this year. I hope she’s swapped with someone more appropriate for the role.
I don’t really know what would change whenever you say “women” in the equality act refers to biological. Isn’t it already against the act to discriminate against someone for being trans anyway?
There’s a bunch of women specific legislation in the equality act as well.
For example, it allows for the existence of women only spaces which include gyms, refuges and toilets.
If you say that women is used in its biological sense, you’re saying that trans men can use these spaces but trans women can’t.
However, the ehrc is going full terf and saying that despite the ruling that women is used in its biological sense, they think that all trans people should be prohibited from using some of these spaces.
The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.
That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?
It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion
This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)
Yes, I did read the article. I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.
I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance, but she is the one who runs the EHRC and what they do/say. She sets the culture. She’s the boss.
This commissioner is talking in this way (“accept it and get on with it, trans people!”) because it’s the message that comes from the top.
Like, it’s not a sheer coincidence that this spokesperson’s professional view aligns with her boss’s. One caused the other.
I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point
I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)
I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance
I’m glad to hear that.
I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)
I know what she said, and it doesn’t undermine my point.
She is acting as if nothing has changed, when something has changed: the actions of the EHRC.
The law hasn’t changed, but the EHRC is dubiously using the SC’s verdict to push for anti-trans measures in gov departments.
Why are you still not addressing that?
I’m glad to hear that.
Um, ok? I’m glad you’re glad.
Now are you going to address what I said or not?
I know what she said
I’m confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?
Because – as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.
From one side of their mouth they’re saying nothing has changed, from the other they are using this as vindication for new anti-trans moves.
Now that I’ve again answered you, for the final time, are you going to address what I’ve been saying?
It feels like you’re just arguing in bad faith for the sake of arguing, and I can’t be bothered with that.
I think I see what you’ve been trying to communicate now.
as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.
Well the problem is you didn’t say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:
my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.
Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody “saying one thing and doing another”. The critical part is that with “the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything” you’re presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.
My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.
When North Carolina and Mississippi passed anti-LGBT laws, that mandated trans people use the toilets of their assigned sex among other things, the Foreign Office issued travel advice warning LGBT tourist against travel there. Reindorf is now trying to introduce the same here and has the gall to tell trans people to stop overreacting to them becoming second class citizens by her hand.
Yeah I’m not gonna change what bathroom I go to because a bunch of fascist nonpeople called a sham trial about it.
I went to the women’s loos, changing rooms etc. since I DIY’d the very hormones and puberty blockers the papers fearmonger about as a minor and will continue to use women’s loos etc. now that I’ve had the ‘permanent irreversible surgery’ the public hates so much as an adult.
I had it on the NHS of course, and as a work immigrant from outside of Europe and yes - I paid the double taxes that subsidize the welfare of this sinking hateful little island for years, so I absolutely deserve it and it’s just me getting some of my money’s worth by accessing the appropriate healthcare for my condition, and now my condition is well treated, almost cured, and I’m doing better than ever.
If you’re upset by this - cope and seethe. I’m not going anywhere. I’m a citizen now.
I advise all other trans women to do the same.
If my condition makes me a criminal then I’m a criminal. If this is radical to you, then I’m a radical.
Self-ID was/is supported by ex-Tory MP Theresa May btw. It’s fairly common sense. So is NHS funding for healthcare. So is hormones and PBs for minors.
Edit: whoever replied to me, I must’ve blocked you in a previous thread, unsurprisingly. Doubt I’m missing much.
nonpeople
O_o
hahahahahaha
no
Misleading title, they’re apparently not reducing rights, they’re communicating that the rights have not changed, but assumptions were incorrectly made and it ‘feels like reduced rights’. It’s not a nice thing to learn and needs to be handled carefully and compassionately, even a policy to be permissive and encourage to normalise what the assumed increase in rights were, working towards making them actual rights. But yeah, antagonistic headlines as always.
That’s the narrative, but trans rights have been taken away. Ask anyone who is being forced to out themselves by going to their “sex assigned at birth” bathroom, or being forced to use the accessible toilets.
That’s in no small part due to the EHRC’s “interim guidance” that in no way follows the law.
Not to speak of the increased trans-spotting, and the fact women can now be searched by male police officers (trans or cis) for being suspected of being trans.
And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people, outing them to their employers and potential employers.
And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people
I’m curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?
Well, I’m not an expert in this stuff, but here’s a couple of starting points
- This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass
- The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
- The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
- Last year, the UK government banned the use of puberty blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).
Generally, rather than listening to experts, the government cherry picks bad research (similar to weirdos saying vaccines cause autism) and listens to and emboldens hate groups.
It’s a words Vs actions sort of thing. They say they support trans people, while doing everything they can to make their lives worse.
This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass
“to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests.”
From what I can tell, this isn’t about creating a registry of trans people, this is about collecting “sex at birth” alongside other data for any “identity verification requests” which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.
- The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
- The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
- Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).
None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.
I don’t understand how you went from this stuff you’ve linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?
That’s my point about permissiveness, if the rights weren’t there about self identifying, but everyone’s ok with it, then it feels like more rights, which may or may not be supported in law. But then when a lack of support in law is being enforced by bad feeling alone, people who want to cry about who’s using which toilet, then the end result is that it feels like a loss of rights. I think it’s a bad thing, but I also understand that in law, being able to do something without a fuss, and then later not being able to, is nothing to do with rights unless the law actually changed.
human rights are not just based on what the law says…
if a community that had an unwritten custom that everyone could access the village well, and then a new ruler passed a law restricting certain people from the well, would you say no rights were violated since well access was never legally codified?
unless of course you’re a feudalist/capitalist that supports the commons enclosures or the Highland “clearances”…
Can’t this be solved by requesting that trans people use the disabled bathroom? Or maybe allowing places to request that. And maybe mandating that a gender neutral bathroom be made available (can also double as a disabled one)
That’s not really fair on disabled people, their facilities are already limited and having a bunch of non-disabled people add strain will only exasperate that. Also, forcing trans people to use a special trans toilet will also out them in public and potentially make them less safe.
This is also such a non-issues, trans people have been using the toilets of their gender identity for literal decades and it’s only become an issue now, and only because of well funded activist groups, not any issues in the real world.
I’d say it would be the implication that trans people are disabled which is the most problematic part of the disabled toilet suggestion. In terms of practicalities I don’t think there are enough trans people in the UK to cause significant queues at disabled toilets.
True, but I do still think the unfairness to disabled people is important to highlight, even if it’s just the principle of it as opposed to real world impacts. It’s important we don’t let them push ‘undesirables’ into disabled people’s facilities as that carries negative implications for both groups.
Trans people aren’t “undesirables”
I was speaking rhetorically about people like Reindorf, I didn’t mean to imply you thought trans people were undesirables.
There’s nothing shameful about having a disability. I’m autistic and have used the disabled toilet in times when my anxiety was really bad.
I have a transgender friend who said it was basically a disability, wouldn’t use the term “mental illness” as that’s quite derogatory, but gender dysphoria isn’t nice to live with from what I hear.
I don’t think transgender people are plentiful enough that disabled facilities will be overwhelmed
Or we could just make all bathrooms gender neutral and stop obsessing about what genitals people are born with. It really doesn’t matter, it’s none of our business.
May be a bit more expensive to do that, but I have been places where this is the case
