Observer article today

[MrsSnippyPants]

David Isaac was previously chairman of Stonewall.........

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/21/transgender-rights-equality-human-rights?CMP=share_btn_link

He wants more money and more powers.
But clearly the rights of women are not a priority.
www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/interview/equality-and-human-rights-commission/93491/david-isaac-ehrc-needs

A policy of self-identity isn't transgender equality. It gives transpeople more rights than the rest of us: The right to have an untruth recognised in law as the truth. I'm not surprised at that from him since the EHRC guidance makes it almost impossible to exclude GRC-holding transwomen from female-only spaces without the fear of a legal challenge. That makes sense in view of the Stonewall associatiion.

As a counterbalance....
Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times.

"Less anti-trans than trans terrorized."

" A new definition of transphobia for you. How about this. A fear of reprisal from transgendered lobby, so severe that it results in you agreeing to their every shrill demand, even to the extent of denying reality.
Just trying to be helpful"

Hmm, Rod Liddle or the Equality and Human Rights Commission? That's a tough one.

I know right. The EHRC just admitted it was putting out misleading guidance and had to change it. Not to be trusted at all.

I know this has been mentioned before, but it is worth pointing out again that there are a group of very influential people going from senior role to senior role in this 'sector'. It's very incestuous and there seems to be no room for dissenting voices.

From the article:
The commission supports the de-medicalising of the process for obtaining a certificate and argues that the panel should be replaced with a face-to-face meeting with a suitably qualified person, such as a registrar.

“The process of engaging with this meeting will help to ensure that adequate reflection has taken place,” it says. It would be the registrar’s job to ensure that the applicant fully understood the legal, social and personal consequences of their actions.

But even this isn't what's being argued for is it? This is the first time I've seen reference to a registrar (and that's without arguing whether it's a good idea to change it to a single meeting).
Did anyone see anything like this suggested on the consultation? There were questions about whether any other steps should be taken but that was pretty much it, I think.
Trans activists are pushing for purely self id. They won't be happy with this either, but anyone reading the article is going to come away with the idea that at least some safeguards are proposed.

Hmm, Rod Liddle or the Equality and Human Rights Commission? That's a tough one.

This is why this whole thing is so fucked up. A few years ago, I wouldn't have guessed that Oxfam would be involved in a child and women sex abuse scandal, or that Amnesty International would be dismissing women raising the alarm about sex trafficking in favour of legalising sex work.
Something is very rotten right at the top of all these sectors. Right now, I'm judging any of these organisations by what they do and actually say, over what they should be doing. Because the two are very, very different.

A policy of self-identity isn't transgender equality.

If it was self identifying as trans that would be about trans equality but it's not.

I know this has been mentioned before, but it is worth pointing out again that there are a group of very influential people going from senior role to senior role in this 'sector'. It's very incestuous and there seems to be no room for dissenting voices.

YYY.

Rod Liddle or someone who posts photos of themselves wanking at bus stops: I know (if I were forced to choose) which I'd least like to be made to share changing rooms with.

Not sure how EHRC works - it seems he's appointed by the Women's and Equalities minister as is the board. He also is on Lottery Fund board (£ to LBGT groups)
Maria Miller is on twitter quoting him.
Is it just me or is every single organisation of dubious integrity.

Absolutely agree with StarsandWater, it feels like a bad dream.

Regarding the commission's idea that the applicant should meet a registrar who will ensure they understand the consequences of changing gender... while the TRA would no doubt prefer to just fill in a form and that's that, I think in practice the commission's idea is the same thing as self-ID. I don't see any indication here that the registrar would have any discretion or scope for rejecting the application.
Even currently, the Panel has no scope to reject the application if the legal requirements are met, and the judgment in Jay v Secretary of State effectively says that the Panel should take a generous view and shouldn't reject the applicant on technicalities, so the Panel has no discretion provided that the applicant requires the requested documents, even if they had to shop around for a diagnosis: "The judgment emphasised that the purpose of the GRA is to facilitate legal recognition of a person’s gender and should properly be regarded as a permissive, not a restrictive, regime. This being so, procedural hurdles should not be unduly placed in the way of applicants and medical and other evidence should be looked at as a whole." ( www.cloisters.com/blogs/judgment-analysis-jay-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice )
But while the Panel has very little discretion, at least the requirements for a GRC and a 2-year period exist and can be enforced to a certain extent. That would all be completely out the window under a permissive "registrar" regime.

Yes, what he's suggesting is that the registar give a little "here are the consequences of your decision, are you sure you understand?" speech and then rubber stamp. It's meant to protect the transperson from making a rash decision - doesn't address the consequences for others in any way.