Get in there Akua, yes, transpeople have been lied to.

[Taytoface]

The guardian, yet again, and not nearly as snidey as I thought it would be.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/06/ehrc-commissioner-calls-for-trans-people-to-accept-reduced-rights-after-years-of-lies

The article title is certainly going to cause upset, how strange that the guardian would choose this headline knowing how upset it would make the people they normally are so careful not to upset.

Almost like they want to distract from what Akua Reindorf had to say.

Which was:

Reindorf, speaking next, agreed: “Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are. It’s like Naomi said – I just can’t say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights.”

and

”She called this “the catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place”.

“The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs were being grievously misled about their legal rights,” she said. “The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.”

Doesn’t quite say what the headline says.

Here is an archive link

https://archive.is/PCSwi

What is happening at The Guardian? Has it been infiltrated by women who understand biology? Next week there’ll be an article entitled ‘JK Rowling is right about everything’ at this rate!

The article confuses two different things i think. The idea that trans people could self-identity into their preferred sex category was indeed a lie; the organisations that promoted it sometimes talked about "getting ahead of the law", i.e. they knew that what they were saying was incorrect.

But then there's the idea that people with a GRC should be treated as their preferred sex in the context of single-sex facilities & services. That was a widely-held misunderstanding of the law, rather than a lie.

Both the lies and the genuine misunderstanding will need to be corrected. Of course Akua Reindorf and Naomi Cunningham know this, but the journalist and some of the quoted TRAs don't seem to have understood it.

@Helleofabore

It's not that it doesn't "quite" say it, it actually says something directly contrary. But clarity and intellectual integrity has never been the Graun's stock in trade.

@LadyBracknellsHandbagg Perhaps refusal by GC former readers to renew subscriptions may be leading to a slightly more open attitude to how the paper reports news?

I was aiming for understatement. Did I succeed?

The Guardian had a readers' survey fairly recently. I had a rant in the section for any other comments. I suspect others did too.

Of course she’s right, but the EHRC guidance previously also compounded this occurring.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Akua Reindorf, who was speaking in a personal capacity, said, speaking in a personal capacity, that....

In April, the EHRC released interim, non-statutory advice about how to interpret the ruling, which set out that transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they cannot use toilets of their birth sex. A number of critics have called the advice oversimplistic.

Anyone else confused by the bit in bold? In what cases would a trans person not be allowed to use toilets of their birth sex? Surely that's the exact opposite of what the SC ruled?

Also, Akua Reindorf for PM. No beating about the bush, just clear and honest explanations.

Headline is disingenuous nonsense though

“accept reduced rights” theyre not being reduced because they were never rights in the first place

and unfortunately many ppl just scan headlines rather than read articles

what it should have said was “trans people need to accept they’ve been lied too”

I wondered that too. I think it's a reference to the idea that TIMs aren't 'safe' in men's spaces, which of course has been leveraged as an argument for them to use women's.

I'm so pissed off about this article. I think there's grounds to complain to IPSO. it's a blatant and cynical misrepresentation of what was said, which is obviously against press ethics. Not to mention it could be damaging to Reindorf's reputation at least, and quite possibly her personal safety, given the things that have happened to women saying things that TRAs don't like.

The SC judgement specifically states that there may be instances where people who have made extreme body modifications may need to use alternative spaces.

edit.

Female people having taken testosterone to develop male body cues for instance. They may need to use a mixed sex provision.

Incidentally, the Guardian Digital app headline is 'Trans people must accept loss of rights, says EHRC commissioner'.
That 'must' is obviously stronger than 'calls for'. I wonder if someone at the paper got slightly cold feet and that's why they modified it?

I see the Guardian said nothing about Fae’s support of violent porn, or references to women’s ’eggshell skulls’.

Fuck. Just checked and the Guardian isn't in IPSO.
Complaint to them then.
Wonder how that will go.

It’s my understanding (but I don’t have the ruling in front of me so can’t double check) that the SC acknowledged that in some cases, a trans-identifying woman who had virilised so much that she strongly appeared male, would be distressing to women if she used women-only spaces. In that case, the trans-identifying woman would be expected to use a third (not male or female) space. My interpretation of that was it’s a case of, if you modify your body to such an extent that you cause discomfort to others, for whatever reason, you will have to deal with the consequences of that.

Funny, those using Fae as a reference never do.

I even wonder if they care about who they use for comment.

The judgement says that trans people can be excluded in some circumstances from toilets of their biological sex if their presence might cause distress.

I. E. A masculinised woman looks so much like a man, or a feminised man looks so much like a woman, they can be excluded from both sets of toilets reserved for biological sex.

They did clarify that a trans person cannot be left in the situation where there are no facilities left to use

Guardian drooling out tiny weeny breadcrumbs 🤢

@OneGreyScroller @Helleofabore- thank you for explaining.

Yes, though (don't have the judgment in front of me) I think excluding a TIF because her masculinised appearance would cause distress is more likely with regard to eg. accomodation in a shelter rather than nipping into the loo.

Though in either case she still can't be left with no provision at all.

Perhaps its because a transwoman who has had his penis removed would be unable to use a urinal if that was all that was available for men. The quote said ‘cannot’ rather than ‘not permitted’. Hence the need for some gender neutral provision.