Excellent from Trevor Phillips

I can't stand the man. Don't give a monkeys what he thinks.

But I am confused about the idea that a PC cannot be self id into. How else can someone have the PC of GR?

I think that's his point. That a PC shouldn't be something you can self ID into. It's an argument against the existence of the PC of GR.

I would love to know what the intention of the PC of GR was. Was it ever to be allowed to change sex on documents, preferred pronouns?

Changing sex on documents is due to the GRA not the EA. Although sex can be changed on some documents without a GRC, it's still nothing to do with the EA.

The EA is about discrimination and about equal and fair treatment of people with different PCs. If someone thinks they have been treated unfairly because of a PC, they can make a claim against the organisation.

I really rate Trevor. And I have no problem with him referring to mothers and sisters and daughters.

But I am confused about the idea that a PC cannot be self id into. How else can someone have the PC of GR?

I would love to know what the intention of the PC of GR was. Was it ever to be allowed to change sex on documents, preferred pronouns?

I noticed India Willoughby's tweet on this - never happens, does it India?

I think he's just trying to personalise it for men who otherwise wouldn't give a shit. By invoking thier own personal connection to women, he is eliciting empathy, man to man if you like. Honestly, we do have to let men speak to men in the way they know will bring other men along, if we want their support. I agree that women are often spoken about according to who "owns them", but lets not let perfect be the enemy of good here.
The comments are pretty bad. I don't have sn X account, but it would be nice to see a TERF pile-on in his support.

But many of them are mothers, wives ,sisters.
All of them are daughters.
I'm every one of these and I'm happy with T.P saying this.
We all need good men like him on our side.

These could all be in relation to women as well as men, and anyway, why shouldn’t he address men? Pointless quibbling.

I'm not sure that really matters legally.

Excellent piece 👏

I too read the female roles but as an appeal to men to consider their nearest and dearest. He was addressing men, so he didn't need to list their roles - they know who they are!

Incidentally it just made me think: every single trans person, every single TRA - they were all birthed by a woman (obvs).

Do they not realise this?! Do they not care about their own mothers?

I hadn't realised that Trevor was involved in drafting the legislation. What a guy!

Well said Trevor 👏

Five years ago, he'd have lost his job.

No, because he's a man. If he were a woman, of course.

Did you read the whole piece?

This is the part where he talks about mothers, sisters, wives and daughters (and it's not the first paragraph, it's the 6th):

Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t.

He's quite obviously talking about what men think, and why it's different for their female relatives.

I think that’s what struck me - instead of writing about women directly it was as their roles in relation to men
also not all women are in those roles - I don’t currently meet any of those categories - parents now dead
Surely this is his way of involving men. Because you don't find yourselves in these dangerous situations, Do not ignore your nearest and dearest who do have to avoid these situations.

I am curious about why I felt the way I did when I read that bit

I’m sorry your parents have passed. I’m interested in your reaction too, because I noticed that you still identify your parents as your parents although you no longer consider yourself to be their daughter.

My dad is dead but he is still my dad and I am still his daughter.

I thought it was very powerful. He's always prepared to speak out about injustice. The Labour party suspended him some years ago for alleged Islamophobia when he spoke out about the rape gangs in Northern towns, integration and the proposed definitions of Islamophobia. (they later quietly dropped the charges) One of his daughters lost her life to an eating disorder and he's written powerfully about her and mental illness.
His Sunday morning news programme on Sky is always well worth a listen.

Yes, that really makes sense.

And he also makes a very neat job of showing how easy it would be to make a complete mess of discrimination law if self-ID is tthe trump.

What do your feelings have to do with it? You are a daughter, all women are. It's not about feelings, it's materially objectively true.

Whatever your feelings are about having lost your parents, it's not Trevor Phillips responsibility to navigate.

It was good to hear this:
I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue.

What is difficult to understand is why they all did not come forward before to say ‘I was there making the Equality law and this is what was meant by ‘a man’ and by ‘a woman’?

Maybe he could have a word with the waste of space that is Harriet Harman.

Surely we just need for people to understand the issue. This is the most important thing. We don't require them to politically correct as well

Also, for all of those people who loudly and proudly advertise their 'trans rights' credentials, this is just a conceptual, political issue. When an issue is brought closer to home and back to flesh and blood reality one can realise its impacts more readily. Plus, secretly, even the the loudest TRAS know full well what men are like and why women require certain protections or accommodations on account of that.

All of those people who bang on about 'trans rights' most often completely neglect to mention that women and girls are impacted. It is as if they just don't exist, or if they do exist, only as walk on parts in a highly politicised and ideologically motivated debate on 'equality' and 'progressivism'.

That is exactly how I heard it. A man clearly explaining the issue to men. I think he is great on lots of topics.

Well it means nothing then, does it? We are our own people. We are not defined by relationships to others. We’re not all wives, mothers and sisters, anyway.

Men are sons, too. FWIW.

I read it as him writing from the perspective of a man, outlining why men should be concerned about the topic. Too many men I have come across aren’t ‘that bothered’ because ‘it doesn’t really affect me’.