Maya and the new EHRC chairwoman in the Times!

Professional isn't really in their wheelhouse; if it were people might start expecting them to reflect current law, provide verifiable statistics, etc etc

That letter, to me, seem yet another example of being "all about the feelz" and containing no critical, evidenced arguments that hold any water whatsoever.

I'm probably biased, but who uses "kick in the teeth" in a letter they want to be taken seriously and sound professional in?!

I suspect they are also panicking about the fact they have been the primary purveyors of incorrect legal advice to many many institutions, who presumably won't be very happy with them when the house of cards comes down

Be nice if some of these companies sued them for incorrect advice. After all, they did set themselves up as some kind of expert. Surely there should be some kind of financial penalty for getting it so very wrong. One wouldnt be blamed for thinking deliberately. 🤷I wonder if they have good insurance 😁

They're just panicking that after their complete failure to recognise that there are competing rights in all this alongside the collapse of the intimidatory #nodebate, their incomes are going to be affected

I suspect they are also panicking about the fact they have been the primary purveyors of incorrect legal advice to many many institutions, who presumably won't be very happy with them when the house of cards comes down...

Meh. They're just panicking that after their complete failure to recognise that there are competing rights in all this alongside the collapse of the intimidatory #nodebate, their incomes are going to be affected.

Open letter from Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Mermaids etc... berating EHRC for intervening in my case.'

My heart bleeds for them. Boo hoo.

And now the backlash
'We are disappointed that, despite the realms of possibility to improve LGBTQ+ people’s lives and our access to our human rights, the EHRC has driven forward very little for our communities in recent years. Against that backdrop of a lack of support for LGBTQ+ people, we are frustrated that you then chose to intervene in a case to say that so-called ‘gender critical’ beliefs should be a protected philosophical belief.'
www.consortium.lgbt/ehrc-open-letter/

'Open letter from Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Mermaids etc... berating EHRC for intervening in my case.'

'But remember, there is no conflict of rights, and it is fine that most government departments have signed up to be overseen by Stonewall 🙄'

t.co/7bBkOAwGSd

Just to point out I am not sure she has every said sex if real. She has just said women have the right to believe that and it is her job to balance women's beliefs against TW beliefs.

But at least she is saying women have the right to voice their "beliefs"!

So relieved someone at the top of the tree is actually willing to say, "sex is real," "You have to listen to women" "Women can have beliefs, same as everyone else."

It's actually sad how relieved I am. This should be normal for God's sake. Not so near unique I have to hold on to avoid a meltdown.

This is just such FANTASTIC news :)

Also important to be very clear about 'proportionate' in those exceptions.

It it not proportionate to exclude female people of faith, disability, trauma, culture, many other reasons from a female single sex facility for a male person who wishes to be there.

It is not proportionate to remove privacy and dignity from all female people present to provide privacy and dignity for a male person who is concerned they would not have this in male single sex facilities.

It is absolutely not bloody proportionate to expose female prisoners to the risk of harassment, assault and worse by known male offenders to provide male offenders with affirmation in their identity. The disparity of standards is utterly gobsmacking in its sexism.

The proportionate response would be to ensure that a male person is always provided with a safe, dignified alternative provision.

2.3k comments on the Times article!

I’ve added a supportive comment.

Will we be able to tweet Limericks (that aren’t even Limericks) now, without expecting a call from the police? Will the police have to reign themselves in now?

-and will MNHQ be discrimination on the basis of belief if they disallow calling a man who claims to be a woman, a man?

She is getting very little support on twitter twitter.com/KishwerFalkner/status/1393601803372089348

On the social media anonymity thing - I agree with op that she means I can be anon, but twitter will know who I am so they could pass details to the police if someone reports a tweet to the police, and if I'm barred from Twitter I wouldn't be able to rejoin with a different account without lying about my identity. There would be some benefits (deterring anime accounts who threaten violence etc) but some disadvantages for us. There would have to be a v good appeals for suspensions, and we know that the social media platforms are not supportive of gc women to say the least. I wonder how it ties in with the planned online harms bill?

Over 2,000 comments with the vast majority supporting her. There's a huge shift in understanding about what has happened with all this and - as we always knew what would happen - people are unhappy and speaking out now in increasing numbers.

Sorry only had time to skim read but in response:

I hope she wont get forced out because even if there isn't blatant online bullying (or worse) I suspect she will be under sustained attack -- or at least there will be calls to say the EHRC is not a valid organisation or something. (But on the other hand it does seem that PN for instance tones dont its insults when it is someone with "status" eg their very mild, but silly, title re Blair and not looking "askance" at JKR. You can imagine what the article title would have been if some uppity woman had made a similar comment)

Also my saying about giving title meaning to the outside world is because (as someone made me aware) mumsnet thread titles come up quite high in google searches, and it is really good to the the actual message (especially a small victory for actual women - yeah!)

Someone has started another thread. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4245343-The-Times-Women-must-be-heard-on-transgender-identity-says-new-equalities-chief so hopefully this statement will seep through. But bet none of the compliant newspapers who always print heartrending stories about the awful way in which trans women are treated, give the equivilent space to a GC women or organisation that suffered because organisations and funders have misrepresented the single sex exemption.

I am just hoping the EHRC puts a clear statement on their web site. It is really vital that groups and individuals can quickly say to anyone challenging the single sex exemption please see url ....

If it's no longer an offense to speak facts and express other beliefs (and I'm phrasing this carefully as it is an offense here) then no GC woman has any worries about social media having real identities. It isn't GC women instructing people to die in grease fires or brandishing swords and barbed wire baseball bats.

It seems as if the EHRC may be starting to remember they are responsible for nine protected characteristics, not just one.

Only problem is that it's mainly gender critical women that have been pushed into the shadows of anonymity to have their voice heard in public due to the potential implications to their careers, family and safety. Whilst TRAs can shout their name from the rooftops and expect to be on the receiving end of applause and validation.

The fact that that article has garnered comments like no other that I have ever seen, the majority of which agree with us; the fact that my ex army, least-likely-person-to-be-interested-in-these-issues, brother in law was ranting on about the idiocy of LNER ,have convinced me that the wheels have come off the trans juggernaut. They have overreached.