'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.

@CardsforKittens

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

Yes. Really no sense of the scope from either perspective.

Which makes one wonder - how can you supposedly have these issues as your area of expertise and what you are meant to be concerned about, and not actually know what people are saying?

Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out David!

Does anyone know whether his replacement properly understands the Equality Act? 🤞

Just seen this

I see Scrimpshaw was quicker off the mark. 👍

In what way is this harming the UK. We had a public consultation which is a demonstration of the UK's commitment to democratic process. How is that harming? He would have liked to force through an unpopular legal change without any consent form the people in the UK affected. His attitude stinks.

Apologies. Bovary has already mentioned the stonewall connection.

Not sure why you're all being so mean and uncaring about this.
A man is feeling disappointed here.
Can't we all rally round and make him feel better?

I'm interested in his phrasing here:
"“We’ve been calling for greater protection for trans people,” said Isaac, “but I’m concerned, not just about the polarisation, but also the toxic nature of debate, which is about shutting down freedom of expression and stifling discussion."

"The toxic nature of debate" - debate in general, or this debate? Debate in general isn't about 'shutting down' etc.

I would have maybe used the phrase "the toxic nature of the debate".

Getting a Nadia Whittome vibe here ("We must not fetishise “debate” as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act. The very act of debate in these cases is an effective rollback of assumed equality and a foot in the door for doubt and hatred.")

Not sure why you're all being so mean and uncaring about this.
A man is feeling disappointed here.
Can't we all rally round and make him feel better?

It's come to a rum time when I actually hate the EHRC.

Can't we all rally round and make him feel better?

'Cheer up, David, love, it might never happen! Go on, show us yer teeth, darling, you'd look lovely if you smiled.'

• like that?

They didn’t even manage to list the correct protected characteristics on their own diversity monitoring form...

In his comments he is actually saying that TRAs are the one who are stifling debate and need to listen to the other side.

I'm sure he still thinks women should be kind of and budge over, but he can at least see which side the toxicity is originating on.

He sounds as though he hasn't got a clue about what's been going on for the last few years.

“We’ve been calling for greater protection for trans people,” said Isaac, “but I’m concerned, not just about the polarisation, but also the toxic nature of debate, which is about shutting down freedom of expression and stifling discussion.

And who has been doing this? Could it be the TRAs and their 'no debate'?

“We have to acknowledge there are lots of difficult issues in relation to women-only spaces, but shouting at each other doesn’t help anybody. We need to move beyond that toxic debate so talking to each other, engaging in respectful listening even if you disagree, that’s the way forward.”

If he'd been paying attention he'd know that groups of women have tried to do this, but the TRAs insisted on 'no debate'. It's not our fault that there's been no debate or a toxic debate. He doesn't offer any suggestions for getting TRAs to engage in civilised debate instead of shouting abuse and being violent.

David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

So the head of the biggest trans lobby group, which actively campaigns to remove women’s single-sex rights, is chosen to lead an official body whose jobs include protecting women’s rights.

Got it.

Wait until you hear how the BBC is reporting this.

'Trans groups campaigning for trans rights up against SOME WOMEN'S GROUPS (dismissive, er no, you mean the majority if the British public), David Isaacs says we'll never get very far if we keep shouting at each other!' Cue rueful, smirking inflection from newsreader.

Made me so cross early this morning!

At least he is acknowledging that the debate is toxic. Really annoying, however, that he says there are "just a few areas" where the two sides disagree: toilets, refuges, and age for beginning treatment. Really? Nothing about prison populations. Nothing about transition being used to hide a criminal past. Nothing about gathering accurate stats for crime, disease, poverty, etc. Nothing about safeguarding or curriculum or sport or women's posts in politics or boardrooms going to trans women. We just disagree about toilets and a couple of other little technicalities.

BBC - captures!

As in state capture - captured. I need another up of tea this morning.

David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

In 2015, Stonewall campaigned to remove single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

What the hell?

What is 'uncivil', the word 'bloody'? It is blasphemy on a Sunday, I suppose.