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.
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.
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.
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.
