Mary Ann Stephenson confirmed chair of EHRC

Back to the thread topic, I wonder if anyone is familiar with the Housing Quality Network or how much of their work is relevant to EHRC; they published an article on the appointment of Dr Stephenson.

https://hqnetwork.co.uk/news/new-chair-of-equality-and-human-rights-commission-to-be-appointed-despite-mps-concerns/

"They have not only nearly destroyed their own party"

The current intra-Democratic frustrations don't really have that much to do with nailing down their stance on the gender identity movement (though it could be a factor down the line), but have more to do with the old guard and young progressives disagreeing with the direction the party should take.

"they have foisted Trump on the American people"

It's important to keep in mind that the portion of US voters concerned about the clash of gender identities and material reality (including some gender-critical feminists) had a chance to attempt to untangle this mess via the legal system, public pressure campaigns, etc., a good while before the presidential election campaigns really kicked into gear and Trump seized the narrative.

It's not as if they had no choice but to helplessly stand by and watch right-wing politicians and commentators control the narrative for their own private gain.

No direct equivalent of the Equality Act exists in US federal law, so concerned people could not have sought legal clarity the exact same way UK feminists have sought it via the FWS v The Scottish Ministers case.

But it's telling that despite the sociopolitical and legal differences there were still legal avenues left unexplored in the US before the transgender issues became politically salient, and yet there are some who appear to essentially espouse "well, I haven't tried much but I'm out of all ideas".

Victoria Smith has a pertinent article in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/are-you-or-have-you-ever-been-a-terf/

All the fig leaves the tras wore to try try to disguise the shrivelled truth of their real objections.

The petition mentioned in the article seemed to have garnered relatively few signatures (less than 4k). There was a link to it in the Attutude article that was hyperlinked in VS piece. There may have been other petitions that did better.

Was going to suggest (as I see the always-on-the-ball @ArabellaScott has already done) that you have a look through the NHS audit threads, but also yes, do DM me or @KnottyAuty.

I wonder if the threads looking over NHS trusts might be of use? @KnottyAuty may be able to help?

I cannot say too much without it being clear who I am - this is a niche area after all - but a big part of my work is persuading people councils that EIAs are important and need to be done properly. Even more so if you are a government organisation and so have to act to redress discrimination as well as just not be shite.

The good news is that there are a few other people now who have realised how much use they can be as well.

However, if anyone does have examples of really bad ones (like @TwoLoonsAndASprout ), please do say. I know a couple of people who collect them...

The audit of NHS trusts has thrown up the following entertaining but worrying trend in EqIAs:

For a policy that allows trans-identifying people to use the accommodation that matches their chosen gender (rather than their actual sex), EqIAs often have “this policy will have a positive impact across the board for all protected characteristics”, because “trans people can be disabled, trans people can be people of colour, trans people can be religious…etc”

Anyone who can get rid of that absolute ridiculousness gets my wholehearted support.

I agree. EIAs are supposed to flag up areas where you might discriminate without meaning to. Like "our building design is good for wheelchair users but bad for the visually impaired".

Lots of public authorities (looking at you, Welsh Government) use EIAs to mean "we asked Stonewall and they said it was legit".

That's good news. EIA's have been much neglected by the "Let's get rid of the crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure" brigade. With facts and data being replaced by the demands of feelz.... 😁

A bit late to the party but I've only just put two and two together.

I've met her and was potentially going to work with the WBC in future and she's excellent. But for a couple of reasons which are really relevant here.

Firstly, she's an expert on Equality Impact Assessments, which are the best way we have at the moment of Getting Shit Done. Properly. So this will be very good news.

But - and this is really just a wider version of the same thing - she's spent the last few years arguing via data - which the WBC did an excellent job of, across the board - and so will not put up with feelz but just ask them for their data.

I cannot think of anyone better.

Something none of these people had a problem with when it was only genderists who had a seat at the EHRC etc table.

Naturally. They are the only ones allowed to speak, how very dare you think to the contrary.

hate boner
A phrase to add the list containing (or not) 'Schrödinger's genitals'

Something none of these people had a problem with when it was only genderists who had a seat at the EHRC etc table.

So the new modus operandi will be:

1. Refuse utterly to interact with EHRC, meet with them or contribute to their consultations.
2. Complain that the EHRC talks and listens to Sex Matters and not to you.

From the Wiki entrey:
The Lemkin Institute aims to identify genocide as a process that can be categorized into ten patterns, rather than as a single event. This framework makes its definition broader than the one found the 1948 Genocide Convention.[4] An eight-step approach to analysis aims to identify genocide in its early stages. The institute defines eleven principles for genocide prevention.[5] The institute considers that genocide can happen to groups everywhere and that it is everyone's responsibility to work to resist it.[6]

So genocide is anything the 'Lemkin' Institute says it is? very useful for them.

Not sure! Either way, the pomposity and self-importance on that website is off the scale. So you can see why I assumed they were men 😆

It looks like they were pompous grifting women, rather than guys. Presuming the female names are actually female people.

Honestly, the way the TRAs solemnly (sp?) refer to that place, as though it weren't just a couple of pompous, grifting guys. They even appropriated the name!

Thank you! I see that relatives of Lemkin object to the use of his name.

I hesitate to cite Wikipedia, but nowhere else seems to have anything about its history. It really does seem to be two activists with a website who appropriated Lemkin's name.

Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Wikipedia

Is there a link anywhere to an explanation of the Lemkin astroturfing group? It’s a beloved claim on Reddit/Bluesky.

I once cold-called a newish and very authoritative-sounding think tank who had been advertising for help/contributors, when I was at a low point in my old job and thinking this might be a possible career avenue for me.

I remember asking normal job questions about their structure, how large their teams were, etc. The guy just kind of sheepishly scoffed at me: “I’m not sure this is really … that sort of organisation”.

I cringe now that I realise what all that front was probably hiding!

The number of outfits with 'institute', 'council' and 'college' in their names which are run out of someone's back bedroom, and are based on a laptop and a filing cabinet, is quite startling.

I always check them out now, ever since I wondered how the author of an article shared the same surname as the name of her institution. She'd started it, and it wasn't a 'college', it was her private business.

Seriously? How ridiculous these people are 🙄

That sounds to me like an excellent idea, and exactly what they should be putting their resources towards.