Maya and the new EHRC chairwoman in the Times!

[ahagwearsapointybonnet]

Hopefully this will work..
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8123df6c-b4db-11eb-9055-64edaa2be8dd?shareToken=5c72af8b5e78baccf2996520f8a25b3b

Wow, over 1000 comments on the article already.

This is brilliant news. Looking forward to the Observer covering it tomorrow (she says hopefully).

And the massive majority of them absolutely on point.

I see several repeated attempts at the same statement and phrasing from several commenters: it's settled law (implication: it's over, too late to talk about), one of these involving a straight out claim that whatever Truss says, Self ID is in the EQuA.

That's not what the EHRC are now saying. And badly made, badly thought out, very badly phrased law that has caused this absolute mess where not even a judge can easily work out how its supposed to work really needs undoing and re thinking from scratch.

Ooh, it would be interesting to hear what she has to say on why she left the Lib Dems then...!

If anyone does feel like starting another thread (or putting something somewhere else e.g. in AIBU) with more focus on the actual quotes, as stumbledin suggested, feel free - I just plopped and ran with the first title I could think of because I was supposed to be in bed already but wanted to share it

Such a good article and wow - the comments! 1200 so far with over 1,000 recommends for the top rated and so many men with intelligent supportive comments.

Slowly slowly this tanker will be turned around.

Wow.

The first woman, and a woman of colour at that, being appointed as chair of the EHRC, and not a single line about it in the Guardian. Can you imagine this going unmentioned 10 years ago, 5 years ago even? How far that rag has plummeted. Katherine Viner really should be ashamed of herself.

We now need a clear and unequivocal statement from the ECHR that self ID is not the law; and that any company, school, public body, university etc making rules stating or implying that self ID is law, and more importantly, discriminating against women and girls in the creation and implementation of those rules, is acting in breach of the EQA, and must desist immediately or risk prosecution.

Further, that all training material and policies must be urgently reviewed, and any reference to self ID being law and any policies formulated on self ID being lawful be withdrawn immediately and reviewed/scrapped/amended as appropriate.

And further, that any disciplinary action that has been taken against anyone challenging self ID be immediately rectified, positions reinstated, compensation paid and public statements issued confirming the innocence of the party that was disciplined.

Finally, an urgent enquiry into institutional capture by entitles such as Stonewall, Mermaids etc. And an urgent enquiry as to the conduct of those within the institutions who went along with such capture, when the law on GRC (and the non existence of a law of self ID) are as plain as bloody day.

I assume as part of her appointment she was reassured that she would receive Government support if she took this line.

What it will do is force Stonewall out of the shadows they currently hide in in almost every area of public policy making. If they oppose what she says, they will need to argue against. If they have "dirt" on her expect some misogynistic attempts at character assassination. Otherwise they might even have to rely on logical argument.

Liz Truss is now one of the most popular senior figures in the Tory party. Male commentates express surprise and ponder about what she had done to now be considered as a potential future leader. I think women have a better idea of why she is trusted. The political credit she has gained from standing up to the Stonewall behemoth may not have escaped her bosses.

1.3K comments - I haven't a hope of reading them all

@TedImgoingmad

The first woman, and a woman of colour at that, being appointed as chair of the EHRC, and not a single line about it in the Guardian. Can you imagine this going unmentioned 10 years ago, 5 years ago even? How far that rag has plummeted. Katherine Viner really should be ashamed of herself.

We now need a clear and unequivocal statement from the ECHR that self ID is not the law; and that any company, school, public body, university etc making rules stating or implying that self ID is law, and more importantly, discriminating against women and girls in the creation and implementation of those rules, is acting in breach of the EQA, and must desist immediately or risk prosecution.

Further, that all training material and policies must be urgently reviewed, and any reference to self ID being law and any policies formulated on self ID being lawful be withdrawn immediately and reviewed/scrapped/amended as appropriate.

And further, that any disciplinary action that has been taken against anyone challenging self ID be immediately rectified, positions reinstated, compensation paid and public statements issued confirming the innocence of the party that was disciplined.

Finally, an urgent enquiry into institutional capture by entitles such as Stonewall, Mermaids etc. And an urgent enquiry as to the conduct of those within the institutions who went along with such capture, when the law on GRC (and the non existence of a law of self ID) are as plain as bloody day.

Agree with every single word of this.

@TedImgoingmad

The first woman, and a woman of colour at that, being appointed as chair of the EHRC, and not a single line about it in the Guardian. Can you imagine this going unmentioned 10 years ago, 5 years ago even? How far that rag has plummeted. Katherine Viner really should be ashamed of herself.

We now need a clear and unequivocal statement from the ECHR that self ID is not the law; and that any company, school, public body, university etc making rules stating or implying that self ID is law, and more importantly, discriminating against women and girls in the creation and implementation of those rules, is acting in breach of the EQA, and must desist immediately or risk prosecution.

Further, that all training material and policies must be urgently reviewed, and any reference to self ID being law and any policies formulated on self ID being lawful be withdrawn immediately and reviewed/scrapped/amended as appropriate.

And further, that any disciplinary action that has been taken against anyone challenging self ID be immediately rectified, positions reinstated, compensation paid and public statements issued confirming the innocence of the party that was disciplined.

Finally, an urgent enquiry into institutional capture by entitles such as Stonewall, Mermaids etc. And an urgent enquiry as to the conduct of those within the institutions who went along with such capture, when the law on GRC (and the non existence of a law of self ID) are as plain as bloody day.

Yep! I’ve no doubt there are many conversations going on at guardian towers working out how can they damn her with faint praise whilst heavily implying she’s the wrong sort of woman of colour whilst no doubt lining up an interview with NB Laurence of LNER fame to tell how they only want people to beeee kiiiinndd

Thanks, @SunsetBeetch . I feel I should be celebrating, but instead I am angry as hell.

One more on my list of demands: An enquiry on the conduct of outgoing Chairman, David Isaac, in particular, his conduct with regard to Stonewall. An enquiry into whether any undue influence was exerted over the EHRC as a result of DI's close ties (current and historic) with Stonewall.

(Trevor Phillips was investigated whilst he was chair, so there is historical precedent for an enquiry).

This is absolutely great- principled leadership seems to be so rare in a public body. They are always so scared of government disapproval because their funding comes from government. Maybe she is confident she has government backing for this or maybe she’s a principled leader whatever it takes. Either way it’s a big relief to see this.

I’m not sure about the anonymity online thing though- anonymity as GC women know can be essential to saying anything at all in the public sphere/online. Maybe I misunderstood?

The phrase 'gender critical theory' annoyed me.
Biological fact and female existence isn't theory. The TRA's like to frame us as the niche group instead of them when it's gender/queer theory that is the belief system of the tiny minority.

not RTFT but what she’s saying would represent a massive cultural u l-turn for this ‘equality’ organisation if it is actually implemented and they recognise women and girls have rights too.
Is there going to be a mass exodus of EHRC staff or will they say they were captured? Either way so far there has been a massive sexist failure of the previous staff and more importantly Board member level leadership as their job is to guide the organisation.

@TedImgoingmad

Thanks, *@SunsetBeetch* . I feel I should be celebrating, but instead I am angry as hell.

One more on my list of demands: An enquiry on the conduct of outgoing Chairman, David Isaac, in particular, his conduct with regard to Stonewall. An enquiry into whether any undue influence was exerted over the EHRC as a result of DI's close ties (current and historic) with Stonewall.

(Trevor Phillips was investigated whilst he was chair, so there is historical precedent for an enquiry).

Yes!

I understand your anger, I do. We should never have got to the point in the first place. So much 'undoing' to do.

@ChattyLion

not RTFT but what she’s saying would represent a massive cultural u l-turn for this ‘equality’ organisation if it is actually implemented and they recognise women and girls have rights too. Is there going to be a mass exodus of EHRC staff or will they say they were captured? Either way so far there has been a massive sexist failure of the previous staff and more importantly Board member level leadership as their job is to guide the organisation.

Being charitable, many of them could have been too afraid to speak out.

The fact that that article has garnered comments like no other that I have ever seen, the majority of which agree with us; the fact that my ex army, least-likely-person-to-be-interested-in-these-issues, brother in law was ranting on about the idiocy of LNER ,have convinced me that the wheels have come off the trans juggernaut. They have overreached.

Only problem is that it's mainly gender critical women that have been pushed into the shadows of anonymity to have their voice heard in public due to the potential implications to their careers, family and safety. Whilst TRAs can shout their name from the rooftops and expect to be on the receiving end of applause and validation.

I don't think she is asking for people to have to use their real names to comment online, but that they should have to register for the sites under their real name, meaning action could be taken against them if they are abusive, have multiple sock accounts etc., but would still be able to use an anonymous screen name to post.
If it could be made to work, I think this would be a good compromise, as it would still protect people from being put at risk by their identity being visible (being threatened in real life/pursued at work for saying sex is binary for example!), but would allow those making threats, sending 🍆 pics etc to be identified and if necessary reported to police.

My only questions are a) how would they know whether the details given are sign-up were real/really that person, and b) people for whom anonymity is important would have to trust the social media companies both to keep their info safe from external hackers etc, and to be unbiased themselves so they don't end up pursuing people or reporting them to police for exercising reasonable free speech!

As well as the safety and privacy issues that cause so many of us to stay anonymous (and which can't be resolved just by taking away abusers' anonymity online, as the abuse can easily be taken into the real world instead if the victims' identities are known), a lot of people have jobs where they are required to watch what they say in social media if it could potentially be linked back to their employer, so I don't think forcing people to use real names to post would ever be workable!

If it's no longer an offense to speak facts and express other beliefs (and I'm phrasing this carefully as it is an offense here) then no GC woman has any worries about social media having real identities. It isn't GC women instructing people to die in grease fires or brandishing swords and barbed wire baseball bats.

It seems as if the EHRC may be starting to remember they are responsible for nine protected characteristics, not just one.

Sorry only had time to skim read but in response:

I hope she wont get forced out because even if there isn't blatant online bullying (or worse) I suspect she will be under sustained attack -- or at least there will be calls to say the EHRC is not a valid organisation or something. (But on the other hand it does seem that PN for instance tones dont its insults when it is someone with "status" eg their very mild, but silly, title re Blair and not looking "askance" at JKR. You can imagine what the article title would have been if some uppity woman had made a similar comment)

Also my saying about giving title meaning to the outside world is because (as someone made me aware) mumsnet thread titles come up quite high in google searches, and it is really good to the the actual message (especially a small victory for actual women - yeah!)

Someone has started another thread. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4245343-The-Times-Women-must-be-heard-on-transgender-identity-says-new-equalities-chief so hopefully this statement will seep through. But bet none of the compliant newspapers who always print heartrending stories about the awful way in which trans women are treated, give the equivilent space to a GC women or organisation that suffered because organisations and funders have misrepresented the single sex exemption.

I am just hoping the EHRC puts a clear statement on their web site. It is really vital that groups and individuals can quickly say to anyone challenging the single sex exemption please see url ....

Over 2,000 comments with the vast majority supporting her. There's a huge shift in understanding about what has happened with all this and - as we always knew what would happen - people are unhappy and speaking out now in increasing numbers.

On the social media anonymity thing - I agree with op that she means I can be anon, but twitter will know who I am so they could pass details to the police if someone reports a tweet to the police, and if I'm barred from Twitter I wouldn't be able to rejoin with a different account without lying about my identity. There would be some benefits (deterring anime accounts who threaten violence etc) but some disadvantages for us. There would have to be a v good appeals for suspensions, and we know that the social media platforms are not supportive of gc women to say the least. I wonder how it ties in with the planned online harms bill?