Stonewall taking the EHRC to the UN

[Cuck00soup]

Being discussed on radio 4 soon.

Seems SW and the Good Law Project are trying to remove the independence of the EHRC. At least in part it seems due to their intervention in Scotland.

Interview with SW coming up in the next hour

@Phos

I once volunteered with Stonewall. Never again.

Me too, back around the millennium. Plus proudly wearing my Stonewall T-shirt.

Why would Stonewall object to the EHRC concentrating their efforts at elevating. the white working class in the north of England? Is it because that particular group doesn't have the time for luxury beliefs, and spend enough time at the coalface of reality to know bullshit when they see it? Is it because the average educational attainment of these groups neither allows them to be easily indoctrinated into using the new language, nor do they hold the peculiarly middle class malaise of wanting to appear more educated and more liberal than they actually are? Is it because, unlike with elevating the societal position of ethnic minorities, you can't easily piggyback T/Q rights on the back of white, working class elevation, which are matters of economic and core educational (not bollocks PSHE) prioritisation?

As soon as she doesn’t start delivering, there will be cries that she is transphobic for having a female wife, and therefore should step aside for a trans woman (more than likely rather than a trans man). This is the way it’s heading. I wonder if she has considered this at all?
I suspect that she’s still in post purposefully - to have a woman leading the way. Same with Mermaids. These women are just fronts to make their agenda seem less threatening or concerning.

I think the article on the BBC website today is misleading. The headline and final quote imply that Stonewall's argument has a legal validity which is lacking from the EHRC's argument. I've put in a complaint to the BBC. It's easy to do so - google BBC Complaints, and go from there.

Well I look forward to another trolling post by UNWOMEN. Because they really are unwomen and not really for women at all.

I am going to be very interested in the outcome for this.

These women are just fronts to make their agenda seem less threatening or concerning.

And asking the question about "why is she doing it" or focussing on her as an individual is largely pointless.

If she wasn't doing it, she wouldn't be in the job.

As per - "I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."

Which is akin to an anthropic principle.

Urgh! Josh Parry, the BBC's LGBT+ Correspondent just said the the GRA reforms would allow people to change their legal sex more easily.

FFS the clue is in the name Gender Recognition Act.

The last part of the BBC article:
“However, their most recent statement, published in January 2022, called for the plans to be paused, and noted "concerns" around single-sex services, but did not elaborate on what those concerns were.

Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall, said she believed there was "credible evidence" that the EHRC no longer met the criteria of a national human rights institution.
"The politicisation of the UK's human rights body has placed trans people in the firing line, but this attempt to create a hierarchy of human rights in the UK is a very real threat to everyone, particularly those of us protected by the Equality Act."

The journalist did nothing to explain the nature of the concerns over self-ID, or why it could be that self-ID could put Trans concerns at the top of a hierarchy over other categories protected by the Equalities act.

Over disabled children and women, and
ill women and girls in hospital
Over all abused women in prisons and refuges
Over People with religions requiring single spaces, many of whom are black
Over LGB orientations

Over women in prisons

“Mochudubh

Urgh! Josh Parry, the BBC's LGBT+ Correspondent just said the the GRA reforms would allow people to change their legal sex more easily.“

Please would you let me know where he said that?

@ScrollingLeaves

Literally minutes ago on BBC News 24.

@ScrollingLeaves
I'm watching on TV - Sky Channel 503 but it was just before the report on washed-up Lego, around 9.40 - 9.45.

@Mochudubh
Thank you.

@Mochudubh

Urgh! Josh Parry, the BBC's LGBT+ Correspondent just said the the GRA reforms would allow people to change their legal sex more easily.

FFS the clue is in the name Gender Recognition Act.

But a GRC does enable someone to change their legal sex, it is a legal fiction.

A trans person can change their legal sex by obtaining a GRC. A trans person who does not have a GRC retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for legal purposes.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

but this attempt to create a hierarchy of human rights in the UK is a very real threat to everyone, particularly those of us protected by the Equality Act

Yes nancy it is, and yet you seem to happily forget that sex is a protected characteristic. So much DARVO it's ridiculous.

What makes some women so fucking beholden to men that they would sacrifice our entire sex class and all female rights without a second thought.

Wow! Stonewall now trying to cancel the EHRC!

So having the Equality and Human Rights Commission headed, for a decade, by a former chair of Stonewall is fine. No conflict of interests there. No sirree.

But the moment the EHRC puts in a gentle word about at least considering women's rights, eg to single-sex spaces, before removing them -- all hell breaks loose.

"Women's rights are human rights?" Not if a male person wants to remove them.

Why would Stonewall object to the EHRC concentrating their efforts at elevating. the white working class in the north of England? Is it because that particular group doesn't have the time for luxury beliefs, and spend enough time at the coalface of reality to know bullshit when they see it?

This, 100%.

I’m not sure what rights the EHRC are allegedly trying to remove from trans people, I thought it was all about additional rights? - but I can surely see the rights that Stonewall want to remove from women.

@Hoardasurass

This actually really concerns me as we know that the UN are completely captured

Me too. I believe the extent of the capture, at very high levels, has always been the biggest challenge we face.

Many of these international groups have powers that mean that even if the UK turns the corner, there will still be a bigger battle on the horizon as the fight will then be taken to the next level.

We can influence the government, to an extent, by voting and by more direct actions where we can give feedback. How would one even begin to influence the UN or WHO or whatever? I really have no clue how it could be done, other than through a massive and well-documented change in public opinion, that’s so obvious it can no longer be ignored.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

Thanks. I'm a relative newcomer to this debate and didn't realise that.

I’m not sure what rights the EHRC are allegedly trying to remove from trans people

Some imaginary rights that lobby groups have led them to believe they have, by the looks of it.

Sally Hines trying to undermine Justin on Twitter and he has the perfect comeback.

Obviously it's completely fine for two males to discuss removing women's rights though.

@Mochudubh

Urgh! Josh Parry, the BBC's LGBT+ Correspondent just said the the GRA reforms would allow people to change their legal sex more easily.

FFS the clue is in the name Gender Recognition Act.

One of the things that obscures clarity in this area is that government and law have tended to use gender and sex interchangeably. See e.g. the Supreme Court in Elan -Cane at paras 5 and 52 where this is explained www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/56.html

Even the Gender Recognition Act itself doesn't draw a clear distinction between sex and gender. Here is the main provision on the consequence of obtaining a GRC:

(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

The implication seems to be that the certificate changes the person's (legal) sex. Certainly that's the approach that many gender critical writers have argued for i.e. that the law recognises sex and the GRC creates a legal fiction of a change of sex.

“Mia85
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

The implication seems to be that the certificate changes the person's (legal) sex. Certainly that's the approach that many gender critical writers have argued for i.e. that the law recognises sex and the GRC creates a legal fiction of a change of sex”

So perhaps any complaint to the BBC about Josh Parry saying sex instead of gender would get the reply that he was correct?

Yes I imagine so.