EHRC strongly reject Stonewall's claims

[LangClegsInSpace]

Yesterday Stonewall published an open letter and a press release denouncing EHRC's support for the clarification of the meaning of sex in law.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/ehrc-%E2%80%98actively-harming%E2%80%99-trans-people-ignoring-international-recommendations-charities

Some of it is blatant lies and some is blatant misrepresentation. It's all very dishonest so I am really heartened to see EHRC's response and their strong rejection of Stonewall's claims.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-following-recent-commentary-our-advice-regarding-definition-sex-equality-act

Stonewall has worked very hard to misrepresent the law, and to get as many orgs as possible to also misrepresent the law, for years and years, and have repeatedly used #NoDebate tactics to shut down criticism.

None of that is working for them any more. Narcissistic rage on an institutional level is a sight to behold 👀

I think we have a very real chance now of clarifying that sex means sex in the EA and not gender or gender identity.

I expect the tories will lose the next GE but if they can get this done before they go then that would be grand.

Who gets to tell wee Victor?

Stonewall seem to be implying that GANHRI have issued a lengthy list of corrections to the EHRC regarding trans people, but having read the report that Sronewall linked to, that is not the case at all. They seem to be being shockingly disingenuous. Am I reading it right??

Good that the EHRC has defended its position so strongly. (Still a shame that it was captured for so long - it could have done more to prevent the mess we currently find ourselves in.)

Good

I am not sure how helpful this is. Most people wont be aware of any letter from Stonewall (despite them thinking they are the centre of the universe!)

So if you read it without the context of the criticism it comes over as very muddled, and almost as thought they are apologising for ever so slightly suggested that maybe the word sex should be legally defined in the EA.

ie one step away from backing down.

Really strange that they just say they have written in response to commentary, which could equally have been that they were glad that their early statement had been well received and reassured those most effected by the lack of clarity of the word sex.

Bit of an own goal.

They good have had one short sentence to say that supporting the need to use the word sex as a matter of biology in no way impacts on existing provision to protect trans rights.

I fear they are wobbling.

Honestly. The entire thing could be reduced into stonewall saying you must let men into women's spaces, otherwise we'll go ballistic. And the EHRC saying, no we don't necessarily think so, because frankly you've been taking the piss.

But no one is prepared to say men, women, or spaces.

You are indeed reading it right. It's interesting to compare what GANRHI says about the Turkish organisation Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (HREIT) on page 8, where GANRHI's Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) "notes with concern ..." and the language used about the EHRC, where the SCA merely "notes" and recommends it receive A status.

Stonewall misrepresenting the facts again? I'm shocked, shocked!

Isn't there some kind of regulator who can tell stonewall to correct the untrue claims that they have made? Or is it carefully worded so they haven't actually lied, just strongly implied a load of absolute bullshit?

I found this part interesting

We think that the UK government should consider simplifying the legislation so that all trans people have the same rights under the Equality Act. We think that this simplification could result in clarification for all trans people, including those who identify as non-binary.

What would that mean?

Change the protected characteristic from gender reassignment to gender identity?

That was my concern.

Isn't there some kind of regulator who can tell stonewall to correct the untrue claims that they have made?

The Charity Commission would be the regulator in question. Charity rules aren't particularly onerous, but they certainly expect a fair degree of decent behaviour that's normally not hard to meet, but I can imagine this sort of continued pattern of behaviour could trip over something.

Change the protected characteristic from gender reassignment to gender identity?

Or just remove it altogether. And add a clarifying note that "trans" is already covered by "religious belief" - anyone who believes they have a special soul is covered. And that then also would be symmetrical - anyone without the belief also can't be discriminated against. At the minute "gender reassignment" is not, so someone without "gender reassignment" can be discriminated against.

Although that would leave the Miranda Yardleys and other sane transsexuals out - they do have the current physical "gender reassignment", but not any sort of religious belief. But then a lot of the current "trans" would say they're not "trans".

I don't know how you cover Miranda Yardley and a non-binary under the same clause. Physical modification and religious belief are not the same thing.

So we're back to just removing it altogether to give all "trans" the same rights?

Physical modification and religious belief are not the same thing.

Yes, good point.

From the link
the EHRC has continued on its trans-hostile path and is now actively advocating to roll back trans rights in the UK.

As opposed to being women and girls hostile and advocating the roll back of their rights.

They really still don’t get it do they!

It is a shame that in the reply it was all soothing strokes about T people, and no reminder that women also require equality and inclusion.

This is the crux of it. That permitting female humans to have equality of consideration is not 'genocide' to a male person with a TQ+ identity, and that the T political lobby need to be able to cope with the idea of their needs being met alongside other people's needs being met too.

Nothing less than total capitulation, total destruction of all boundaries and razing of the social contract will do for the TQ+ lobby.

What on earth recognising the whether someone does not feel something (NB) or feels different things all day (fluid) would mean back in the real world, lord only knows.

I don't much care for the state recognising inner feelings. The state should have minimal interference in our feelings, frankly. It should recognise reality. I doubt any of us wants to live in a world where our inner feelings get a certificate from the government

I read it as meaning that they will clarify that sex is biological sex. That way trans people will know exactly which service they are supposed to use, even if they are non binary etc. But maybe that is wishful thinking?

Yes. Muddy the waters even more. As opposed to clarifying them. The wording around 'gender reassignment' is already vague and open to misinterpretation Gender identity can mean any damn thing, any day, for five minutes between lunch and dinner.

For example, today many trans people do not identify themselves as transitioning from one gender to another but may identify with a more fluid gender identity or without reference to a binary gender at all.

Absolute meaningless wank.

That paragraph struck me as well, but I don't think - I hope not - that the EHRC would recommend replacing GR with GI as a protected characteristic because of the problems with defining it, observing it, etc in real life.
I wondered if it might be connected with GRCs - perhaps making them easier to get, but allowing anyone to request sight of one? Still keeping the sex exceptions, I assume, given their advice to the Minister. I'm not sure how it might work, but I think the EHRC are hinting at collapsing the characteristic of GR and the legal act of getting a GRC into one thing.

Nothing less than total capitulation, total destruction of all boundaries and razing of the social contract will do for the TQ+ lobby.

And as soon as anyone even mildly objects, they go overboard.

But, imo, it actually has the opposite effect to one the intended now.

The tide has turned and the more extreme the trans lobby is, the easier it becomes for places like the EHRC to imbibe of some of Dr Terf's Spine Strengthener.

I read the original advice and this response and the furious reactions to them both by TRAs. They are so bonkers they can't see how compassionate and fair-minded the EHRC is being. Leaning as far as it can to their position without abandoning its main duty to balance competing rights.

Thanks for your take on it @BellaAmorosa i hope you’re right.

I'm practise the PC may as well be GI - in order to claim the PC of gender reassignment someone doesn't have to have have a GRC they just need to say they intend to change gender. They don't have to do anything, take any medication, have surgery etc. in scotland all they have to have is a utilities bill in their 'new' name

https://twitter.com/PompeySteph/status/1656544880334708736

Richards is a bit upset 😭

Oh no! Single sex means single sex!