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

You are in a good position to write to them when they write these rubbish takes on women's rights. 'As a subscriber I am writing to complain....'

They're not currently organised that way though, are they? So what happens in the meantime?

In the meantime, if only single-sex facilities are provided, then that's on the building owners for having failed to consider everyone's needs, and until they can sort themselves out and install some appropriate facilities, people will either have to stick to using the facilities for their own sex, or go elsewhere. The blame lies entirely on the building owners and on Stonewall who lied about the law.

What is it now? I don't visit the site any more because I refuse to participate in their "accept our spyware cookies or pay for privacy" policy. If you could archive the new version on https://archive.is/ that would allow comparison of old and new versions on the archive site? (There's a link to the 07:19am version of the page near the start of the thread)

Lol at the “transgender campaigners call her remarks ‘profoundly unhelpful’ “

yep, goddamn pesky reality getting in the way of attempts to subvert the law.

Latest iteration (I think)

The title now reads

EHRC commissioner calls for ‘period of correction’ on trans rights after legal ruling

Akua Reindorf said law never permitted self-ID, but trans campaigners call remarks ‘profoundly unhelpful’

Link here

https://archive.is/DPYnR

It never did. It was clear that organisations could include TW with women, but that if they chose (and could show it was proporationate) use the clause that says very clearly that TW even with a GRC can be excluded.

Interesting that they have had to correct the original article title which obviously was to get all the TRAs and the be kind readers up in arms.

So well done to whoever complained and got it changed.

And sort of leaves the Guardian with the unintended consequences of appearing reasonable.

Given that it was written by the Senior Political Reporter you would have thought he would fact check.

Of course that would be assuming that the Guardian is a "news" paper.

It is clear from the earlier statments by the EHRC, and information (ie facts not ideology) had made it clear that the self id in the law has never existed.

So the problem isn't just the fake legal advice of Stonewall "law" but all the newspapers that have been prepraed to act to amplify these lies.

This ^^

Also important to remember that women displaced by men wanting to invade women's facilities for their own reasons were not considered, nobody gave a damn that they had nowhere accessible to pee, and they could just find somewhere else and get over it.

If women were expected to just suck this up without complaint, (and trans campaigners would like to go back to that please, complete with no fucks to give about women with nowhere to go) why is it unacceptable to ask of other groups? At least third spaces for them will be coming and people actually care about them.

@DrudgeJedd if you are interested in the Guardian's funding model Marina Hyde & Richard Osman discussed recently on their The Rest is Entertainment podcast. Sorry for the derail

some progress

I guess the moral of this story is that if you're a national newspaper and you're going to wilfully misrepresent what someone has said then you had better make sure that person isn't an experienced legal expert (unless you enjoy backpeddling, issuing apologies and looking foolish.)

The Guardian explaining the values of the Scott Trust.

*Among the many well known lines are the assertions that ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’, that newspapers have ‘a moral as well as a material existence’ and that ‘the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard’. The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community.”

Apparently standards have slipped.

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

The link to the article hasn’t changed. Can a link be libellous?

You could ping Akua Reindorf an email - I’m sure she’d be interested…

Good point.

It's like where we are on mumsnet - we are still "women's rights"!

Just adding this for posterity

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1955919612929040647

Akua Reindorf KC
@akuareindorf

With the invaluable assistance of @MLewisLawyer of @PatronLaw & Beth Grossman of @DoughtyStreet, I’ve reached settlement with @guardian in relation to an article written about me by @peterwalker99, published on 6 June 2025, which was incorrect as admitted in this statement.

Dear Akua Reindorf KC

On 6 June, the Guardian published an article in print and online under the headline "EHRC Commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights". The article reported on analysis provided by Ms Reindorf on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Scottish Ministers at a speaking event at the LSE on 1 May 2025.

The headline and first paragraph of the article were incorrect as they stated that Ms Reindorf had publicly called for trans people to accept reduced rights. Ms Reindorf had not called for trans people to accept reduced rights or perceived reduced rights, as an amended version subsequently stated. The article was corrected later that day and the headline is now "EHRC commissioner calls for 'period of correction' on trans rights after legal ruling"

On 8 June, the Guardian published the following apology to Ms Reindorf in its online Corrections and clarifications column:

An article and its headline sought to summarise remarks made by Akua Reindorf KC, at a debate about April's supreme court ruling on the meaning of the term "woman" in the Equality Act, as calling for transgender people to accept a reduction in their rights (Trans people must accept loss of rights, says EHRC commissioner, 6 June, p2). In fact, she had commented, speaking in a personal capacity, that "[trans people] have been lied to … about what their rights are" and that there "has to be a period of correction because other people have rights". We are happy to clarify this and apologise to Akua Reindorf KC for
any misunderstanding.

An apology and correction were also published by the Guardian in print on 9 June.

I confirm that the Guardian accepts that the article was originally incorrect and has apologised to Ms Reindorf. It has also agreed to make a payment to her and to contribute to her legal costs.
Yours faithfully:
Nick Hopkins
Executive Editor, News
Guardian News and Media Limited

I would love to think that, as a result of this, the Guardian will now accurately report GC issues. In reality I suspect they will simply tread softly around KCs.

I have tried this route before. Result: silence. It’s ridiculous- they should never have been allowed to opt out of independent regulation. I suspect that’s one reason they have been able to get away with all the gender misinformation for years - quite simply, there are no consequences for them. But it’s been deeply harmful for women.

Ooh - apart from these consequences 😂