'Polarised' debate on gender recognition is harming UK, says equalities chief

The existing GRA states.

"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender."

A new birth certificate is issued. Forcibly checking somebodys biology is not going to happen. Trans people exist. Get over it.

We just need to pin these people down. In the inevitable eventuality of gender theory colliding with reality, people who advocated for such social and cultural changes need to be held accountable and liable.

People need to realise that theoretical and ideological positions can have real life consequences.

Much in common? There's no debate here. As far as I'm concerned those who seek to break down safeguarding for children and appropriate women's rights and sexed based provisions have nothing in common with me. There is no debate or discussion to be had with them. Women's rights are not men's rights and never will be. And anyone who seeks to breakdown safeguarding rules for children should go to bloomin' prison. No debate. No compromise.

There was a thread started a while ago www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3699888-Civility-reasonableness-and-those-rules

I think it should be made clear if some opinions, as well as phrases, are strike-worthy.

Fwiw, the conflict of rights is an issue of resources, which makes it analogous to colonialism for me. A group of people coming from the outside to take women's resources eg places on all women shortlists. I think that's a reasonable opinion, but Mumsnet may disagree. Either way, I'd like to know if indeed, it was that opinion which was 'uncivil'. It's certainly not a sweet pov, but it's not beyond the pale.

I’m on two strikes also for no reason. One for using a phrase which isn’t banned. I think we need a thread on this issue separately.

Former Chair of Stonewall says that women need to be nicer to men, in completely unbiased intervention.
All these women wanting single sex prisons are a real threat to society, you know.

There was also a bit about the ideology being a colonising land grab.

Not sure where I'm up to on strikes, so just know that it's best not to say 'bloody', call important men 'mate', or speak out about homophobia, sexism or colonialist attitudes with respect to gender ideology, especially if you've had two strikes already.

What is 'uncivil', the word 'bloody'? It is blasphemy on a Sunday, I suppose.

What the hell?

David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

In 2015, Stonewall campaigned to remove single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

As in state capture - captured. I need another up of tea this morning.

BBC - captures!

At least he is acknowledging that the debate is toxic. Really annoying, however, that he says there are "just a few areas" where the two sides disagree: toilets, refuges, and age for beginning treatment. Really? Nothing about prison populations. Nothing about transition being used to hide a criminal past. Nothing about gathering accurate stats for crime, disease, poverty, etc. Nothing about safeguarding or curriculum or sport or women's posts in politics or boardrooms going to trans women. We just disagree about toilets and a couple of other little technicalities.

Wait until you hear how the BBC is reporting this.

'Trans groups campaigning for trans rights up against SOME WOMEN'S GROUPS (dismissive, er no, you mean the majority if the British public), David Isaacs says we'll never get very far if we keep shouting at each other!' Cue rueful, smirking inflection from newsreader.

Made me so cross early this morning!

David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

So the head of the biggest trans lobby group, which actively campaigns to remove women’s single-sex rights, is chosen to lead an official body whose jobs include protecting women’s rights.

Got it.

He sounds as though he hasn't got a clue about what's been going on for the last few years.

“We’ve been calling for greater protection for trans people,” said Isaac, “but I’m concerned, not just about the polarisation, but also the toxic nature of debate, which is about shutting down freedom of expression and stifling discussion.

And who has been doing this? Could it be the TRAs and their 'no debate'?

“We have to acknowledge there are lots of difficult issues in relation to women-only spaces, but shouting at each other doesn’t help anybody. We need to move beyond that toxic debate so talking to each other, engaging in respectful listening even if you disagree, that’s the way forward.”

If he'd been paying attention he'd know that groups of women have tried to do this, but the TRAs insisted on 'no debate'. It's not our fault that there's been no debate or a toxic debate. He doesn't offer any suggestions for getting TRAs to engage in civilised debate instead of shouting abuse and being violent.

In his comments he is actually saying that TRAs are the one who are stifling debate and need to listen to the other side.

I'm sure he still thinks women should be kind of and budge over, but he can at least see which side the toxicity is originating on.

They didn’t even manage to list the correct protected characteristics on their own diversity monitoring form...

Can't we all rally round and make him feel better?

'Cheer up, David, love, it might never happen! Go on, show us yer teeth, darling, you'd look lovely if you smiled.'

• like that?