" By legislating on trans rights, Theresa May could leave a great legacy"

[Igneococcus]

Says Pink News editor Benjamin Cohen in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/by-legislating-on-trans-rights-theresa-may-could-leave-a-great-reforming-legacy-db92v37dw?shareToken=9243d58b94a4f140bdadc57c649d5057

.... Dominic Raab, not just voicing his opposition for a new law, but seemingly elements of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Equality Act, which allow trans people to self-identify.

This is the problem with the Equality Act, it means different things to different sides. Is he meaning here the 2 year requirement to 'live in the gender of the opposite sex' (or how however it's written)?

It's obfuscation, I assume.

The 2010 Equality Act DOES NOT allow anyone to self-identify their sex or gender. This is a lie that Stonewall, Mermaids and others have cynically spread around the public and especially the private sector. That is how they have got organisations like the Girl Guides to admit males.

They say that when the Equality Act says discrimination against those undergoing gender reassignment is prohibited, that means that transgender people must be treated as their desired sex. That is not what is meant by that section of the law. It means trans people shouldn’t be treated differently from non-trans people of the same sex, for example, they shouldn’t be denied promotion or sacked due to transitioning. The exception is those trans people who hold a GRC.

It envisaged that trans people with a GRC would usually be treated according to their legal sex but even here exceptions can be made if proportionate and necessary to achieve a particular aim. So it would be appropriate to exclude trans women from an female-only exercise class if the aim of the class was to improve exercise rates among conservative Muslim women, who wouldn’t attend if a male started attending, especially if other exercise classes are available.

I wish the Times would make the authors of opinion pieces like that come back and respond to comments as a condition of publishing their writing.

It's laughable that he thinks most people would consider this a great legacy for TM.

His own company, Pink News conducted research that told him how unpopular self ID is with the general public.

I doubt opinion has improved with all the stuff happening in prisons, sport and the Tavistock report and whistle blowing clinicians.

Two pro-TRA articles in the Times today, both based on lies (the article on the Edinburgh uni resignations not mentioning that the staff Pride committee was told to stop making defamatory statements and frightening students by telling them they were unsafe on campus). I wonder if this has to do with the legal action they're facing?

There was an article recently where I thought the moderation of the comments was weird and more severe. I can't remember which one that was now, I'm just over a migraine, brain not working fully yet. Sunday Times I think, rather than the Times. Comments that were in no way offensive were suddenly deleted. I might be getting paranoid but it didn't feel quite right.

All the news outlets will fold eventually, as will most other gender critical outlets.
We're looking at a very very long take over here which will last decades.

The press must have a balanced coverage of issues so I don't have a problem with articles like this being published - even though it's disingenuous rubbish.

Sadly though, I agree with Captain Kirk - this is an exceptionally wealthy and powerful movement - aggressive, self interested with access to those who govern. I believe that they will succeed and we are in for some awful times ahead (feeling gloomy today).

His own company, Pink News conducted research that told him how unpopular self ID is with the general public.

13% of Tory voters, IIRC!

The man is laughable.

Cohen is one of my least favourite human beings. This sort of shite is why.

No comments on that article yet-Cohen is delusional if he thinks the public support self ID.

Agree with 2 pro TRA articles in the Times today, this seems to happen on a Friday. I started subscribing because of Janice and Andrew Gilligan but will stop if this sort of stuff becomes the norm. I'm not interested in the Guardian mark 2.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of self if, I cannot believe that he is so silly as to believe it could be enacted before Mrs May stands down. Recess in the House of Commons begins in summer and MPs won’t return until after party conference. By then the Conservative leadership vote will have been completed and we will have a new Prime Minister.

Unless he is not really writing about Mrs May but this is a shout out to the new leader?

Unless he is not really writing about Mrs May but this is a shout out to the new leader?

That's exactly what it is. It's a bat signal to say "We are still pressing for this. If you want the lobby behind you, this is the price."

One comment finally been approved, and interestingly it's suggesting TM won't make such a move because "She hasn't got what it takes, sadly." No other comments yet - and I guess most of these will be critical of the article, but for some reason these seem to take longer to approve!

That's exactly what it is. It's a bat signal to say "We are still pressing for this. If you want the lobby behind you, this is the price."

Given the nature of the candidates most likely to win the Tory leadership, is the TRA movement openly allying with the far-right then? I'll remember that next time I'm told I'm far-right for thinking women have the right to say no to men.

Cohen and co only care about the political designation when it's a tool to shut women up. Other than that, their only concern is keeping connected to the halls of power and the income streams they provide.

Some comments now appearing and they're not having it. I think the reason that they still haven't responded to the consultation is that they now know what a toxic pile of shit it is and have sensibly kicked it into the long grass. Sorry TRAs you achieved this much by stealth but your cover is blown. No more. In fact we need a roll back and confirmation of sex based rights.

I think the comments are the reason "The Times" is publishing this type of article. They are showing "balance" but know that their educated and informed readership won't have any of it. Comments are moderated to keep out the offensive ones but seem to allow thoughtful and not abusive - but critical - ones through.

I think it is absolutely right that The Times should publish articles from both sides of "the debate". Their duty is to report, not take sides. The fact that articles on, say, Mermaids, are damaging to the TRA cause and thus seen as "transphobic", matters no as long as they get their facts right (and note a large number of complaints that have not been upheld) and that they provide balance. The editor of the Pink Times will have a view on May's legacy. Up to readers to decide whether they agree or not.

Off-topic but over the past couple of days the Mail has devoted a lot of column inches to gay animals. Lesbian dogs, gay rams and so on. The Mail does not have the same desire to be the paper of record, but if this is their attempt to balance their reporting on LGBT issues, it is truly weird. Not sure if they have found a trangender cat yet.

All the news outlets will fold eventually, as will most other gender critical outlets.
We're looking at a very very long take over here which will last decades.

I don’t think it’s going to be that easy. A year or two ago you would never have read a TRA critical story, but there has definitely been an awaking amongst the population, as opposed to being ‘woke’, and more and more GC voices are being listened to. Even the universities are pulling back from banning women’s voices and permitting discussion. We may loss some battles but we will win this war to protect women and children.

Some good comments there now.

I think the comments are the reason "The Times" is publishing this type of article. They are showing "balance" but know that their educated and informed readership won't have any of it. Comments are moderated to keep out the offensive ones but seem to allow thoughtful and not abusive - but critical - ones through.

I agree. Hats off to The Times for giving the pro-trans advocates enough (metaphorical) rope to hang themselves.

All most of us want is good factual journalism. We will form our own opinions and though things we read will influence these, we are quite capable of hearing the views of Mr Pink News and discarding them if we don't agree. Indeed by stating an opposite case he might help us confirm and refine our own views.

I am very happy to read a variety of opinion from a variety of sources. I don't want to be told what to think. (All too Momentum.)

I suspect that we have the stronger arguments - well repeating TWAW and a few dodgy suicide statistics are hardly going to sustain a TRA view into the longer term. Therefore any considered coverage is a positive. Mr Pink News does not seem to have done well in converting Times readers.