'Polarised' debate on gender recognition is harming UK, says equalities chief

[MondayYogurt]

Observer article www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/08/polarised-debate-on-gender-recognition-is-harming-uk-says-equalities-chief

The departing chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said the polarising debate around transgender rights will be damaging to the country if it continues.
In his final interview, David Isaac, who left his position on Saturday after more than four years in post, urged supporters and opponents of gender self-identification to recognise that they had much in common.

In other words : Women, know your place.

That has really, really boiled my piss. The implication that the the lack of debate is due to failings on both sides, and that we should all just be more reasonable. And reducing the fundamental issues that are driving that (non) debate to sound like minor technicalities that should be compromised over.

Fuck. Right. Off. you smug bastard, and to the biased reporting that is masquerading as a balanced article.

This particularly annoyed me:
“I think it’s disappointing: these are tough issues and I think we don’t resolve them by pausing the process,” Isaac said. “We need to look more carefully at how other countries apart from the UK and the US have dealt with these things. France and the Nordic countries have given greater rights for trans people to change their birth certificates. It may be these are more liberal environments where there is less polarisation, but they haven’t had the same toxic debate, and we need to learn from that and work out how we can replicate that. We as a society would suffer enormously if in a decade’s time we were still having this debate.”

Which basically reads as - the solution is to make it easier for trans people to legally change their sex, and we just have to find a way to drag those backward thinking feminists into a more liberal way of thinking.

I don't want to click if it's just telling women to be quiet and move over.

Wonder who will be replacing him then.

The government needs to acknowledge that sex and gender are completely different and separate them in any legislation.
Sex based protection must be maintained at all costs. If the adult males whinge about exclusion, tough shit. They have zero need for female sex based protections.

Gender ideology is a belief that most of the population doesn't share.

Yes, when he talks about France and the Nordic countries it's quite clear where his sympathies lie.

He's bothered about 'toxic debate'? Has he been under a rock all these years? NO DEBATE! And that came from one side and one side only.

Is it really a polarized debate when some people want to legalize making fraudulent claims while most people think that would be a terrible idea?

"Wonder who will be replacing him then."

I'd love it to be Trevor Philips. Not that that would happen.

France and the Nordic countries, certainly the Nordic countries, are rather less sexist: and both are less violent.

Come back when women and girls are not routinely harassed on British streets, when not every female I speak to has her own story of harassment and discrimination, and ask then about letting male sexual fetishes run rampant.

The reason it’s so difficult is because there was #nodebate and when you try to steal someone’s rights away secretly they don’t like it. You’d think the head of the EHRC would understand that.

Tell you what. Let’s infiltrate government institutions, the charity sector, the NHS and schools and blatantly lie about what existing legislation says about the rights of gay men and we will call anyone who objects a bigot. Then let’s see how sweet and friendly the subsequent debate is

France is definitely not less sexist. I lived there on my 20s - nightmare. Street harassment is absolutely horrific there.

I know the Nordics better tbh. Perhaps Britain is the best one for hosting debate as being the half-way house. It's certainly more violent than most of Europe.

Common ground

No one should make assumptions about you because of your sex, gender stereotypes are harmful

Feminist perspective : Uncommon ground ...except where sex actually is important

Trans perspective : uncommon ground ....unless you are talking about anyone who does not identity as trans

Feminist perspective ...women are women because of biology
Trans perspective ...womenhood is about anything but biology

Feminist perspective...women's rights are lost if they apply to a subset of men
Trans perspective,..transwomen need women's rights to be in female only spaces but women don't

Yeah I’m not reading that if it’s all “wheesht & be good girls until after the revolution- we’ll get to your issues then”

When he talks about 'stifling free speech' and a 'toxic debate' it does seem as if he's talking to trans rights activists. So I suppose it's nice that the blame isn't being entirely put on women for the 'toxicity' of the debate. But the overall tone does seem to be one of exasperation that women haven't just rolled over and given in.

I agree it sounds like 'women stop making such a fuss.'

It also suggests that he hasn't really been listening properly either because this whole "you have a lot in common" thing is mostly guff.

He also says

There are lots of women who have been physically abused who are fearful, and we’ve got both groups who are anxious about being physically abused and are the subject of hate crimes, and this is currently the very thing that unites them.”

Except women aren't the subject of hate crimes in the legal sense. We're not and have never been included in such legislation. Men who identify as women actually have twice the legal protection that women have. If we misgender someone who is male and trans we can be charged with a hate crime. That same person can make all the rapey threats to women they want and will not be charged with a hate crime.

So no it doesn't unite us - this seems quite a sloppy mistake for the head of the EHRC.

Just another man with no skin in the game telling women to be nice while advancing men's rights. Same old same old.

It’s the politicking that pisses me off. Why can’t leaders have views anymore? Charity Commission regs about no political position is being taken too far and seems to mean any opinion leaders may have. I am so sick of it.

We need people with vision and ideas and potential for change not hangers on waiting for a seat in the Lords or a swathe of woke support on social media.

Isaac suggested that, on the majority of issues, there was “lots of common ground and lots of consensus that trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against

David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012 according to Wikipedia. Interesting use of 'trans people.' Particularly in a quote which seems to miss the central issue about the conflict between the desire to maintain sex segregated spaces for women. And the natal male activists who are determined to take a battering ram to those spaces. Where is the 'consensus' that sex segregated spaces should end? When was the referendum on this?

The impression I get from his comments is that he doesn’t actually understand either position - which doesn’t surprise me much.

As one of the leaders that created a situation where promises were made to people that they could have something that wasn't ever their gift to give I think he has completely failed in his job. EHRC have been forced to backtrack on incorrect guidance and are refusing to support the EQ2010 guidance update requests made to them last year.

To write this article saying there is common ground is more false representation. He only listens to one side on this and and the toxic insult is directed squarely at women for not conceding. Equality my arse. He's a proponent of male domination.

France and the Nordic countries have given greater rights for trans people to change their birth certificates. It may be these are more liberal environments where there is less polarisation, but they haven’t had the same toxic debate, and we need to learn from that and work out how we can replicate that.

Can’t replicate that mate! That boat has sailed. The reason there was no toxic debate was because there was no debate at all because nobody even considered women, much less asked them if they minded...

@OvaHere

There are lots of women who have been physically abused who are fearful, and we’ve got both groups who are anxious about being physically abused and are the subject of hate crimes, and this is currently the very thing that unites them

This comment really got to me. So the common factor of the proposed grouping is now whether they have been physically abused and are fearful and anxious? Fuck off should that define a group that receives female rights. That doesn't happen to some males? If it's the only uniting factor it's a shoddy basis for legal definition and also why not focus on the cause of that MALE violence.
And yes only the male bit of this new united group can currently have the protection of hate crimes against them being recognised legally and since when did physically assaulted males get gifted the rights of women?

Well, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, Mr Isaacs.

Anyone want to go for the job? www.gov.uk/government/news/recruitment-starts-for-new-ehrc-chair-and-board-members

Deadline is tomorrow.

Ad here: publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/chair-equality-and-human-rights-commission/