Trevor Phillips in the Times

[RhymesWithOrange]

Trans extremists are putting equality at risk

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0fe1693a-d56f-11e8-926d-96790161a92a

Sorry I don't know how to do a share token but this is brilliant. Some extracts:

The disaster of the public consultation process on gender recognition has revealed a government so terrified of being labelled transphobic that it is ready to destroy half a century of painstakingly assembled anti-discrimination legislation to the detriment of every woman, person of colour and disabled individual in Britain.

The self-declaration principle, masquerading as compassionate recognition, risks making a mockery of the struggle for equality. If ministers give in to trans zealots, a white man would merely need to say “Today, I’m a black woman. I might not be tomorrow but, hey, who cares?” Well, I do. And so should everyone who genuinely believes in fairness.

Trevor Phillips WROTE the Equality Act 2010. How can politicians argue with him?



So every training session DH attends run by Stonewall looking at the issues faced by a very small number, who in his industry are often middle class white men, is a training session that could be looking at how managers can support and mentor ethnic minority women, and every pound spent on gender neutral loos is a pound diverted from elsewhere.

This.

Appreciate the sentiment but found it a little fluffy tbh. I still don't understand how anyone's supposed to be able to 'objectively test gender' in another person - the point is that you can't (so indeed the 2-yr verification process specified under the current GRA is pointless bollocks imo as well as dehumanising), so it shouldn't be used as a means of satisfying criteria for access to any public service or space. And in any case gender, or more generally how someone feels about themselves and the fact that they want others to see them how they see themselves, is irrelevant. I just think if you're going to draw a parallel with race, you need to keep sex in the picture too, as that is the element which, like skin colour, can be 'objectively tested'.

A reminder that it is already very easy to change choose whether you have "male" or "female" on official documents, apart from your birth certificate.

On the basis of a letter from your GP or other health professional, and you don't need to have a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria or have undergone any sort of therapy, you can:

Have a passport which says "Sex: M" if you were born female, or the other way round; A driving licence the same; your NHS records identifying you as your preferred gender; etc etc

The only thing that you can't do (or should I say, shouldn't be able to do)is gain access, unchallenged, to services, sports, facilities etc, that you are not entitled to.

Enjoyed this article.
I'm surprised that the comments are in real time too, and appear unmoderated!

I think this article is harder hitting (I read it yesterday on FB - FPFW's page I think?) and keep sharing it as I think it is so good), especially given his past tenure as rector of Edinburgh University - the same place as Ann Henderson

www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/16997263.iain-macwhirter-transgender-rights-great-but-dont-tell-women-what-makes-a-woman-they-were-born-that-way/

The comments are worth a skim, many sensible.

The Times readers seem to be up for a fight if the government takes this further.

Good.

Thank you to Janice Turner, Andrew Gilligan and Lucy Bannerman for educating the readership on this issue.

We would not be here now if it were not for them.

I posted on the wrong thread -

Tough its really well argued and clear when explaining the overall ridiculousness etc - I don’t like the Philips article - he’s taking the issue on to race and ignoring the misogyny of the whole thing- mysoginisitc in itself? : “never mind the women affected - what about if we extrapolate this to the ‘Nth degree and imagine it being used for disabled and BAME rights’ all very well but isn’t this what they call ‘jumping the shark’?

I just think he's twisting it to his own agenda . Not that his agenda isn't really important - but its not the same issue

There's also a letter in the Times today critiquing the transgender survey.

I've been reading The Times - actually buying paper copies!

There may have been harder hitting articles but the point is that people in high places listen to Trevor Phillips - or at the very least, they think twice before rubbishing what he says. I hope his piece will give courage to those Cabinet Ministers who are too timid to do any more than whisper in James Kirkup's ear.

Some interesting comments.
For some reason it won't let me copy and paste on my phone so screenshots below, but I have long wondered why Malta, a tiny conservative catholic island would have been so quick to embrace self ID when they only recently voted to allow divorce. The commentator Selena has a theory.

I think the popular format of opinion pieces and articles just don't suit the nature of this debate. They force commentators to isolate particular elements of the issue which can only be relevant when considered in conjunction with others related to them.
And that's added to the fact that we're all pretending that the word 'gender' is being used in the same way across the whole political spectrum of the mainstream press when in fact some are using it in a very specific, politicised way and others are not, at all, and that means that again we are completely avoiding confronting the heart of the issue.
A paper will be truly brave when it publishes a piece addressing the fact that our reliance on the word 'gender' is the real problem since no one has the inclincation or any idea how to ratify any kind of common application of it. This word doesn't help us out, just continually trips us up.

a way of allowing men to become women without the inconvenient step of ceasing to be male

this, in a nutshell is the strap line

I don’t like the Philips article - he’s taking the issue on to race and ignoring the misogyny of the whole thing- mysoginisitc in itself?

I think he's leading with that issue because it's his best argument. You might be able to tell TF that he doesn't understand women's issues as well as some people. You certainly can't argue with his authority about the broader legal impact on equality legislation in the UK and especially racism.

Sadly the misogyny argument isn't enough on it's own. The debate becomes a competition of victimhood and relative harm. I think this intervention about why the principle is wrong is hugely powerful from someone with so much influence.

'I think he's leading with that issue because it's his best argument. '

Yy. This is the contribution he can make that nobody else with his stature in the UK can.

point taken donquixote I see what you mean

Trevor Philips has just taken over as Chair of Index on Censorship the free speech charity/lobby group. Replacing David Aaronovitch I believe. So I'm not surprised that he has noticed how dysfunctional the public conversation has been on this issue.

I liked the opening paragraph about the flailing arms.

Much of the criticism in the times comments is about how he helped create this current 'woke' 'inclusive' state of affairs which has led to this. (A bit like the arguments you hear - well the feminists have caused this themselves...) but the nature of this has changed a lot. The EA was about a balancing act of rights held by different individuals based on their different characteristics. But self id cuts through that, saying anyone can claim this characteristic as their own and that will take priority over everyone else. He's right to see that will set a precedent for other characteristics (which I expect he is personally more worried for).

IUsed2BeanOptimist - that's very interesting. It's something that clicked with me a few weeks ago when Stephanie Hayden sued Graham Linehan for pointing out her previous names and identity. The ability to change your name and specifically the recorded sex on your birth certificate is an absolute dream for criminals. Sex offenders like Karen White, obviously, but also anyone who has something to hide, such as dodgy businessmen.

Times have put it out on Twitter if anyone wants to comment.
twitter.com/thetimes/status/1054312711503405056

hackmum
Does rather tie up with the 'right to be forgotten' on Google doesn't it?

Trevor Phillips is right and this is something I too have been concerned about. Both ways other protected characteristics lose out - either because self ID makes them meaningless or through guilt by association that leads to a wholesale rejection of so called 'identity politics'.

I wonder if Trevor spoke now because the current chair of ehrc has come out pro-self id. I was surprised by this as i thought their role was to balance rights between protected characteristics.

Does rather tie up with the 'right to be forgotten' on Google doesn't it?

Yes, it does. Once again, I am enraged by the stupidity of the politicians supposedly leading the country. Not to mention the civil servants. Aren't they paid to think about this stuff? Why don't the obvious flaws occur to them? If a handful of us on Mumsnet can work it out, why can't they?

Really interesting re Malta Optimist thanks for sharing.