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

@PearPickingPorky

It's so childish and petty it's actually funny in a very sad kind of way. It's like that AA Milne poem about "Evangeline, I only said, I didn't mean, I only meant your hands weren't clean!"

I thought that was Emmeline!

You're right! It is Emmeline! Who has not been seen for more than a week......

@MangyInseam

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.

Unherd has had some articles about the Council of Europe and trans issues in recent months. It's really important to think about the ways citizens of nations have, or don't have, influence over these kind of international bodies that set agendas or targets or best practices, etc.

I'm on a really good, free 16 week course "Human Rights Law for Non-Lawyers". It's run by Sue English, retired Human Rights Lawyer, one two-hour Zoom session every week plus Sue sends copies of her presentations.

There are two parallel courses so you can attend either on a Tuesday morning or a Thursday evening or swap between the days. Sue constantly updates the materials and there are a couple of women who have been on the course several times to keep up to date.

We did "Freedom of Thought, Opinion and Expression" as part of the session last week and all the examples of breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were from the UK (Sue lives in Germany and there are women from all over the world attending).

I wouldn't swear to it but I think it is just for women who have signed the "Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights"

womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-summary/

The Women's Declaration International (WDI was WHRC) "Feminist Question Time" Zoom meetings are every Saturday at 15:00 and I found about the course when I bumped into Sue in the Breakout Rooms after the presentations.

I would highly recommend these WDI presentations and the "Breakout Rooms" afterwards too.

There is also a free webinar series, "Radical Feminist Perspectives", which "offers a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics. Every Sunday at 10am UK time."

Info about the online meetings and webinars is here:
www.womensdeclaration.com/en/whrc-live/

(There are also WDI-UK Zoom meetings every Monday evening but I haven't been along to any of those yet.)

All the online meetings are single-sex, women-only and I have really enjoyed meeting women from all over the world - and some who live close by who I had never met before! It can be a bit upsetting some times though hearing about the violence against women, and gender-critical feminists and lesbians in particular, in parts of the world where it is so much worse than here in the UK.

I am pretty sure that you don't need to attend the WDI Zoom meetings to go on Sue's course.

When you sign the Declaration you get an email confirmation from WDI. If you reply they should be able to put you in touch with Sue if you are interested in the Human Rights course (for obvious reasons I am not going to post her email address here).

Yes, apparently they never had a blue tick.

Who cares though? What's important is that those trying to take legal action against the EHRC for actually considering balancing the rights of all protected characteristics, are going to make utter tits of themselves and further draw attention to the fact that their modus operandi is to loudly tantrum and throw their toys out of the pram when things don't go exactly according to their demands.

People know that's their MO and they go out of their way to avoid challenging them, though. It can be quite effective.

Baroness Falkner has retweeted Trevor Phillips, saying:

It is indeed ironic to be reported to the UN for seeking a balanced, respectful debate, defending the rights of all.

@delurkasaurus

Baroness Falkner has retweeted Trevor Phillips, saying:

It is indeed ironic to be reported to the UN for seeking a balanced, respectful debate, defending the rights of all.

Stonewall and Jolly Fox Killer are doing nothing for the reputation of the UN by shining a light in it's direction

Trevor Phillips in the Speccy https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stonewall-s-disgraceful-attacks-on-the-ehrc

"But more widely, the elimination of protected categories would inevitably have to be applied to other characteristics if we decided that we could each decide what our sex was. This is a notion that, frankly, could only emerge from a privileged group of white men, who believe that the world should be shaped exactly as they want it in order to fulfil their fantasies."

Archive for those affected by the paywall archive.fo/S8vOZ

Cracking article.

@Tiphaine

Trevor Phillips in the Speccy [[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stonewall-s-disgraceful-attacks-on-the-ehrc]]

"But more widely, the elimination of protected categories would inevitably have to be applied to other characteristics if we decided that we could each decide what our sex was. This is a notion that, frankly, could only emerge from a privileged group of white men, who believe that the world should be shaped exactly as they want it in order to fulfil their fantasies."

Oooft, that's a firecracker of a last line!

This has been reported in the Mail. One of the comments:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10503223/Human-Rights-Equalities-Commission-fire-LGBT-groups-claim-anti-trans.html

"Stonewall - Acceptance without exception trying to ban EHRC? Intolerance Paradox in its prime right here"

Fantastic article by Trevor Phillips

Would this be some of that cancel culture that doesn't exist?

What is being sought by a small minority is the eradication of the very notion that women exist.

Thank you, Trevor. Superb article.

The article by Trevor Phillips is excellent. Not only does he cover women's concerns in a way which shows he understands them but he unambiguously calls out the trans extremists and the people and organisations who have let them have their way for too long. It's a very impressive piece of writing.

news.sky.com/story/rights-group-says-lgbt-campaigners-trying-to-revoke-its-independent-status-have-wrong-target-12539436

Fantastic article.

Yes running to people who murder men for being gay. Good look.

Trevor Phillips is also in the Telegraph - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/12/sir-trevor-phillips-scorns-stonewalls-ironic-attack-uk-equalities/ The comments are nearly all informed and supportive (apart from a racist). One mentions LGBA:
"Check out the website of the LGB Alliance in the UK. They are not, of course, fighting for the rights of straight people, but, by defending the rights of L's, B's, and G's to be same-sex attracted (as opposed to same-gender attracted, as defined by gender ideology), they are also standing up for women's rights and for the material reality of sex. The website is very good, and the group's positions are described with extreme clarity (almost shocking to find this nowadays). The site also has a list of definitions that are unusually clear and easily understood. These people have gotten organized very rapidly, while women in general seem to be divided, or simply confused about trans issues."

and Maya’s Gender Dissidents site - gender-dissidents.net/ - "There are many groups standing up against gender ideology."

Nancy Kelley in the Guardian tonight on EHRC no longer being independent www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/15/trans-rights-risk-human-rights-body-threaten-all-ehrc-un

@Bodoni

Trevor Phillips is also in the Telegraph - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/12/sir-trevor-phillips-scorns-stonewalls-ironic-attack-uk-equalities/ The comments are nearly all informed and supportive (apart from a racist). One mentions LGBA: "Check out the website of the LGB Alliance in the UK. They are not, of course, fighting for the rights of straight people, but, by defending the rights of L's, B's, and G's to be same-sex attracted (as opposed to same-gender attracted, as defined by gender ideology), they are also standing up for women's rights and for the material reality of sex. The website is very good, and the group's positions are described with extreme clarity (almost shocking to find this nowadays). The site also has a list of definitions that are unusually clear and easily understood. These people have gotten organized very rapidly, while women in general seem to be divided, or simply confused about trans issues."

and Maya’s Gender Dissidents site - gender-dissidents.net/ - "There are many groups standing up against gender ideology."

Thanks for linking to Maya’s site - it looks really interesting.

Joanna Williams in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfe36d42-8ea2-11ec-ab9b-59af3878ddff?shareToken=ea7729fcfae0e9df4d51e64fb20458fe

That's a desperate move by Stonewall, but given what is likely to be in the updated, upcoming EHRC guidance, they may hope discrediting the regulator will help them avoid losing all the ground they gained in getting self-id into policy and practice.

It's important for us to consider what the EHRC's position has been since Baroness Faulkner has taken over, what they stated in AEA vs EHRC and what is in their existing guidance and various public statements since: consideration for all protected groups. Of particular interest is their emphasis on considering the needs of transgender persons who are "indistinguishable" from people of the opposite sex. They may not have said it outright, but that is a rejection of Stonewall's demands for dropping all gatekeeping.

I believe it's likely that the EHRC will reject the notion that the provisions of the Equality Act allow for a verbal statement of identity as the minimum standard for trans inclusion. Their statement in court tells us also that they reject both blanket trans exclusion as well as blanket trans inclusion as conflicting with their guidance because in neither case would the needs of both affected groups be fully considered. That conflicts with Stonewall's belief that gender identity supersedes sex in all circumstances. (I fear such a position will also disappoint women's rights campaigners who are hoping for blanket trans exclusion being explicitly allowed for in the guidance, which I think is unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.)

The EHRC's emphasis on transgender people who are "indistinguishable" from people of the opposite sex also makes a mere social transition an unlikely minimum standard for inclusion in opposite sex provisions. There is little justification in granting crossdressers access to opposite sex spaces provided for the needs of women and girls. From Stonewall's perspective that's perilously close to the bad old days where one had to have gender dysphoria to be considered trans.

I do fear that many women's rights campaigners will be disappointed with the new guidance not going far enough, but we will gain ground. Especially when compared with Stonewall's position.

If the new guidance includes consideration for those who have medically transitioned while rejecting self-id, I would expect the general public (most of whom still think we're arguing about access for post-op transsexuals) will look at the new guidance and think it's fair. In which case Stonewall will struggle to get anywhere attacking it. After all, they've been using a sleight of hand in using the needs of post-op transsexuals to argue for rights for the much bigger group of those who identify as trans. If the EHRC makes a distinction between the former and the latter, Stonewall will feel like they've been flung back to 2004.

Which is why they may think discrediting the EHRC is their best hope right now.

Yes indeed. Baroness Faulkner has made it clear that the EHRC is duty bound to uphold all the rights named in the equality act. Taking its aims back to their original intention.

Its going to be very interesting to hear exactly how and why stonewall think this isn't possible. Or at all acceptable.

Will the debate finally allow for the wider public understanding of who is included as being 'trans'. And how that's been allowed to happen.

Let's hope so.

[quote Igneococcus]Joanna Williams in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfe36d42-8ea2-11ec-ab9b-59af3878ddff?shareToken=ea7729fcfae0e9df4d51e64fb20458fe[/quote]
Good article and particularly liked this paragraph
When our own views reign supreme we convince ourselves that we exist in the realm of common sense, not politics. When we mix only with the like-minded we believe not only that we are right but that there is no debate to be had. It’s only the awkward people who disagree that insist on “politicising” issues. In this way, decisions to fly the pride flag on public buildings, change the text on a historical plaque or leave the word “woman” off an advert for cervical cancer screening are nodded through countless committees before ever confronting opposition. When disagreement comes it feels like an affront. How dare people politicise the bureaucratic march of progress?