EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov

[WarriorN]

According to fair play for women.

Awaiting confirmation via a link

including far more and far faster services for people with gender dysphoria

That caught my attention. Dysphoria needs a diagnosis, and I do agree, the waiting lists are a crisis.

However, this is not what Kat Bristow was saying on twitter yesterday - that the only acceptable pathway is self diagnosis and straight onto hormones.

I wonder if we have finally got some input from some people with qualifications in disciplines other than Butler Studies?

Along side the comments on the conversion therapy law, it's sounding like better support for those with GD including therapy, which I'd agree with, to really knuckle down on what gd is and isn't and where it's possible to avoid medicalisation, and thorough neutral assessments.

Combined with the outcomes at the Tavistock review it's looking more positive. We need the Cass review next.

In response to Maggie Chapman:

I think you need to 'reframe your trauma".

Ouch

@Manderleyagain

When I first started reading about this ehrc showed such a lack of clarity, no recognition of a need to balance rights in this area or that these rights could come into conflict, and showed no real commitment to the pc of sex. Their language was the fuzzy obfuscation that we are used to from ppl trying to push through self id, and the replacement of sex with gi in policy. I did not feel that women's rights as female ppl were in good hands at all. I know this is only a return to a more sensible approach but I am really relieved to see it.

Yes they've really hit some nails on heads.

Especially that there's no clear definition of trans.

Looking forward to seeing what the Single sex exception guidance says.

This is massive news. I'm pleased they have pointed out what is plainly obvious - that you cannot create policy without coherent and legal definitions.

I'm not expecting the SNP to listen however and if they don't it makes further legal challenges almost certain.

More tantrums

That LGBT foundation one is a thing of beauty.

These things are fun to read out loud - got to try and eke out every drop of pathos with voice and gesture.

@donquixotedelamancha

It's so bizarre that people are convinced that the government body dedicated to equality is 'right wing' and biased just because it disagrees with them.

No need to engage with the arguments. No clue that these people might have some expertise in this area.

I think a good chunk of what passes for 'progressive' politics has become so tribalised and blinded by soundbite clap-along mantras that they are actually incapable of any deeper analysis than 'disagree with me = baddie = rightwing'.

'horrified' LGBT foundation - are ye, aye?

Oh my stars the fox killer 😂
mobile.twitter.com/anyabike/status/1486400998453170179

These things are fun to read out loud

They really are! I may have a special voice

So the EHRC are not fit for purpose unless they completely disregard the human rights of women and sex based trauma.

That's basically what the LGBT Foundation seem to be saying there. Zero acknowledgement that meeting the needs of everyone is often a fine balancing act.

Laws and policy have to make sense and ideally they need to be fair and work for everyone.

Massive toys out of pram tantrum.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60141382

'A major UK human rights body has urged the Scottish government to pause its reforms to the gender recognition process for further consideration.'

This is cheering news.

And then I read Stonewall’s tweet about their disappointment that the EHRC were caving in to an anti-trans minority.

We are still in this quagmire where being concerned for women, and their legal rights, are deemed “anti-trans.”

Does the fox killer believe that clarifying the law is going to lead to discrimination and prejudice? I put it to the fox killer that ignoring or misinterpreting the law is what could lead to discrimination and prejudice. That man has the sense of a bag of hammers

Why is the LGBT Foundation writing to Mike Freer? Isn't Kemi Badenoch the Minister for Equalities?

We are still in this quagmire where being concerned for women, and their legal rights, are deemed “anti-trans.”

But if women's rights are anti-trans then trans rights must be anti-women. Which is exactly the point. But althought they say that women's rights are anti-trans, they still insist that there is no conflict between 'trans rights' and women's rights.

This is good news.I filled in the conversion therapy consultation and it was an appalling document - closed questions and non evidenced based statements we were invited to agree/disagree with. Well done EHRC.

twitter.com/libby_brooks/status/1486421769363894273?s=21

Scots Gov doubling down

A Scot govtspox says they will consider EHRC's views: “[Our reforms] do not introduce any new rights for trans people or change single sex exceptions. Our support for trans rights does not conflict with our commitment to advance equality & to protect & uphold women’s rights.”

Also in Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/26/nicola-sturgeons-transgender-reforms-wont-protect-women-says/

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: “We will consider the EHRC’s views, which have changed from their response to the 2019 consultation, along with those of others ahead of introduction of the Bill.

“We appreciate the range of views on proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act. We have always been keen to seek consensus where possible, and to work to support respectful debate, and will continue to do so.

“We have now consulted twice on our proposed changes. First on the principles of reform in 2017, and then in 2019 on a draft Gender Recognition Bill. We have published independent analyses of responses to both consultations.

“Our proposals to reform the current Gender Recognition Act do not introduce any new rights for trans people or change single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. Our support for trans rights does not conflict with our continued strong commitment to advance equality and to protect and uphold women’s rights.”

Wow. That Foundation statement is a tantrum de la tantrum if ever I saw it.

The straight up threat of "we're now going to challenge that you aren't fit for purpose because you didn't roll over, tell us how fantastic we all are and pave the way for us to make sure wherever there's a space for women that people with cocks have to be included. Or give us loads of drugs. Or surgeries. Or just whatever we demand really. Right now. For free. How dare you! Waaaaaaaah"

These are people who have gotten used to getting their way all the time and everyone being too afraid to say no. Jeez, reacting with a statement like this. It's an embarrassment.

@NecessaryScene

That LGBT foundation one is a thing of beauty.

These things are fun to read out loud - got to try and eke out every drop of pathos with voice and gesture.

They're ignoring the fact that a huge proportion of LGB persons would agree with EHRC.

This is all about the T, which needs separating from LGB.

BBC article

Call for rethink of Scottish gender recognition reforms

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60141382

All this blathering on about the single sex exemptions on these quotes makes me so cross. Mainly because whenever anyone has tried to use these exemptions in practise the ensuing breakdown, toy chucking and threats usually results in them backing down quick smart with grovelling apologies.

What's the bloody point in an exemption if you always get bullied into retracting it! It's just a there there women, you can have single sex spaces in theory not practise so shush now

Nancy Kelley's hot take. There aren't enough face palms in the world for this.

Replies switched off of course but the quote tweets are worth reading.

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1486407612090437634