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

It's come to a rum time when I actually hate the EHRC.

Not sure why you're all being so mean and uncaring about this.
A man is feeling disappointed here.
Can't we all rally round and make him feel better?

Not sure why you're all being so mean and uncaring about this.
A man is feeling disappointed here.
Can't we all rally round and make him feel better?

I'm interested in his phrasing here:
"“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."

"The toxic nature of debate" - debate in general, or this debate? Debate in general isn't about 'shutting down' etc.

I would have maybe used the phrase "the toxic nature of the debate".

Getting a Nadia Whittome vibe here ("We must not fetishise “debate” as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act. The very act of debate in these cases is an effective rollback of assumed equality and a foot in the door for doubt and hatred.")

Apologies. Bovary has already mentioned the stonewall connection.

In what way is this harming the UK. We had a public consultation which is a demonstration of the UK's commitment to democratic process. How is that harming? He would have liked to force through an unpopular legal change without any consent form the people in the UK affected. His attitude stinks.

I see Scrimpshaw was quicker off the mark. 👍

Just seen this

Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out David!

Does anyone know whether his replacement properly understands the Equality Act? 🤞

Which makes one wonder - how can you supposedly have these issues as your area of expertise and what you are meant to be concerned about, and not actually know what people are saying?

Ad here: publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/chair-equality-and-human-rights-commission/

Well, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, Mr Isaacs.

Anyone want to go for the job? www.gov.uk/government/news/recruitment-starts-for-new-ehrc-chair-and-board-members

Deadline is tomorrow.

@OvaHere

There are lots of women who have been physically abused who are fearful, and we’ve got both groups who are anxious about being physically abused and are the subject of hate crimes, and this is currently the very thing that unites them

This comment really got to me. So the common factor of the proposed grouping is now whether they have been physically abused and are fearful and anxious? Fuck off should that define a group that receives female rights. That doesn't happen to some males? If it's the only uniting factor it's a shoddy basis for legal definition and also why not focus on the cause of that MALE violence.
And yes only the male bit of this new united group can currently have the protection of hate crimes against them being recognised legally and since when did physically assaulted males get gifted the rights of women?

France and the Nordic countries have given greater rights for trans people to change their birth certificates. It may be these are more liberal environments where there is less polarisation, but they haven’t had the same toxic debate, and we need to learn from that and work out how we can replicate that.

Can’t replicate that mate! That boat has sailed. The reason there was no toxic debate was because there was no debate at all because nobody even considered women, much less asked them if they minded...

As one of the leaders that created a situation where promises were made to people that they could have something that wasn't ever their gift to give I think he has completely failed in his job. EHRC have been forced to backtrack on incorrect guidance and are refusing to support the EQ2010 guidance update requests made to them last year.

To write this article saying there is common ground is more false representation. He only listens to one side on this and and the toxic insult is directed squarely at women for not conceding. Equality my arse. He's a proponent of male domination.

The impression I get from his comments is that he doesn’t actually understand either position - which doesn’t surprise me much.

Isaac suggested that, on the majority of issues, there was “lots of common ground and lots of consensus that trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against

David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012 according to Wikipedia. Interesting use of 'trans people.' Particularly in a quote which seems to miss the central issue about the conflict between the desire to maintain sex segregated spaces for women. And the natal male activists who are determined to take a battering ram to those spaces. Where is the 'consensus' that sex segregated spaces should end? When was the referendum on this?

It’s the politicking that pisses me off. Why can’t leaders have views anymore? Charity Commission regs about no political position is being taken too far and seems to mean any opinion leaders may have. I am so sick of it.

We need people with vision and ideas and potential for change not hangers on waiting for a seat in the Lords or a swathe of woke support on social media.

Just another man with no skin in the game telling women to be nice while advancing men's rights. Same old same old.

I agree it sounds like 'women stop making such a fuss.'

It also suggests that he hasn't really been listening properly either because this whole "you have a lot in common" thing is mostly guff.

He also says

There are lots of women who have been physically abused who are fearful, and we’ve got both groups who are anxious about being physically abused and are the subject of hate crimes, and this is currently the very thing that unites them.”

Except women aren't the subject of hate crimes in the legal sense. We're not and have never been included in such legislation. Men who identify as women actually have twice the legal protection that women have. If we misgender someone who is male and trans we can be charged with a hate crime. That same person can make all the rapey threats to women they want and will not be charged with a hate crime.

So no it doesn't unite us - this seems quite a sloppy mistake for the head of the EHRC.

When he talks about 'stifling free speech' and a 'toxic debate' it does seem as if he's talking to trans rights activists. So I suppose it's nice that the blame isn't being entirely put on women for the 'toxicity' of the debate. But the overall tone does seem to be one of exasperation that women haven't just rolled over and given in.

Yeah I’m not reading that if it’s all “wheesht & be good girls until after the revolution- we’ll get to your issues then”

Common ground

No one should make assumptions about you because of your sex, gender stereotypes are harmful

Feminist perspective : Uncommon ground ...except where sex actually is important

Trans perspective : uncommon ground ....unless you are talking about anyone who does not identity as trans

Feminist perspective ...women are women because of biology
Trans perspective ...womenhood is about anything but biology

Feminist perspective...women's rights are lost if they apply to a subset of men
Trans perspective,..transwomen need women's rights to be in female only spaces but women don't

I know the Nordics better tbh. Perhaps Britain is the best one for hosting debate as being the half-way house. It's certainly more violent than most of Europe.

France is definitely not less sexist. I lived there on my 20s - nightmare. Street harassment is absolutely horrific there.

The reason it’s so difficult is because there was #nodebate and when you try to steal someone’s rights away secretly they don’t like it. You’d think the head of the EHRC would understand that.

Tell you what. Let’s infiltrate government institutions, the charity sector, the NHS and schools and blatantly lie about what existing legislation says about the rights of gay men and we will call anyone who objects a bigot. Then let’s see how sweet and friendly the subsequent debate is