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

She is getting very little support on twitter twitter.com/KishwerFalkner/status/1393601803372089348

Will we be able to tweet Limericks (that aren’t even Limericks) now, without expecting a call from the police? Will the police have to reign themselves in now?

-and will MNHQ be discrimination on the basis of belief if they disallow calling a man who claims to be a woman, a man?

@stumbledin

She is getting very little support on twitter twitter.com/KishwerFalkner/status/1393601803372089348

Can we please add some support pronto?! We don’t want this rolled back!!!!

I’ve added a supportive comment.

2.3k comments on the Times article!

Also important to be very clear about 'proportionate' in those exceptions.

It it not proportionate to exclude female people of faith, disability, trauma, culture, many other reasons from a female single sex facility for a male person who wishes to be there.

It is not proportionate to remove privacy and dignity from all female people present to provide privacy and dignity for a male person who is concerned they would not have this in male single sex facilities.

It is absolutely not bloody proportionate to expose female prisoners to the risk of harassment, assault and worse by known male offenders to provide male offenders with affirmation in their identity. The disparity of standards is utterly gobsmacking in its sexism.

The proportionate response would be to ensure that a male person is always provided with a safe, dignified alternative provision.

@Artichokeleaves

Also important to be very clear about 'proportionate' in those exceptions.

It it not proportionate to exclude female people of faith, disability, trauma, culture, many other reasons from a female single sex facility for a male person who wishes to be there.

It is not proportionate to remove privacy and dignity from all female people present to provide privacy and dignity for a male person who is concerned they would not have this in male single sex facilities.

It is absolutely not bloody proportionate to expose female prisoners to the risk of harassment, assault and worse by known male offenders to provide male offenders with affirmation in their identity. The disparity of standards is utterly gobsmacking in its sexism.

The proportionate response would be to ensure that a male person is always provided with a safe, dignified alternative provision.

This, in spades.

This is just such FANTASTIC news :)

So relieved someone at the top of the tree is actually willing to say, "sex is real," "You have to listen to women" "Women can have beliefs, same as everyone else."

It's actually sad how relieved I am. This should be normal for God's sake. Not so near unique I have to hold on to avoid a meltdown.

Just to point out I am not sure she has every said sex if real. She has just said women have the right to believe that and it is her job to balance women's beliefs against TW beliefs.

But at least she is saying women have the right to voice their "beliefs"!

And now the backlash
'We are disappointed that, despite the realms of possibility to improve LGBTQ+ people’s lives and our access to our human rights, the EHRC has driven forward very little for our communities in recent years. Against that backdrop of a lack of support for LGBTQ+ people, we are frustrated that you then chose to intervene in a case to say that so-called ‘gender critical’ beliefs should be a protected philosophical belief.'
www.consortium.lgbt/ehrc-open-letter/

'Open letter from Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Mermaids etc... berating EHRC for intervening in my case.'

'But remember, there is no conflict of rights, and it is fine that most government departments have signed up to be overseen by Stonewall 🙄'

t.co/7bBkOAwGSd

Open letter from Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Mermaids etc... berating EHRC for intervening in my case.'

My heart bleeds for them. Boo hoo.

Meh. They're just panicking that after their complete failure to recognise that there are competing rights in all this alongside the collapse of the intimidatory #nodebate, their incomes are going to be affected.

They're just panicking that after their complete failure to recognise that there are competing rights in all this alongside the collapse of the intimidatory #nodebate, their incomes are going to be affected

I suspect they are also panicking about the fact they have been the primary purveyors of incorrect legal advice to many many institutions, who presumably won't be very happy with them when the house of cards comes down...

I suspect they are also panicking about the fact they have been the primary purveyors of incorrect legal advice to many many institutions, who presumably won't be very happy with them when the house of cards comes down

Be nice if some of these companies sued them for incorrect advice. After all, they did set themselves up as some kind of expert. Surely there should be some kind of financial penalty for getting it so very wrong. One wouldnt be blamed for thinking deliberately. 🤷I wonder if they have good insurance 😁

That letter, to me, seem yet another example of being "all about the feelz" and containing no critical, evidenced arguments that hold any water whatsoever.

I'm probably biased, but who uses "kick in the teeth" in a letter they want to be taken seriously and sound professional in?!

Professional isn't really in their wheelhouse; if it were people might start expecting them to reflect current law, provide verifiable statistics, etc etc