Per appointment hearing for new chair of EHRC. This afternoon

[impossibletoday]

If anyone wants to listen/watch

https://x.com/CommonsWEC/status/1939616377750401117?t=MLdkge4QWLoyBv6F2SOSA&s=19

Presumably the Welsh MP? was trying to get her to condemn JKR who's said something about toilets and photos?

I thought she was diplomatic but clear. Every time one of the useful idiots emoted about trans & feelings of being marginalised she calmly asserted that yes this was awful and other groups like women feel like this too Thought she answered the "TRA have complained about you signing letters" very skilfully pointing out it was about free speech and had we had this all along instead of #nodebate, we might not be in this mess. And her response to Kennedy about the station's toilets referencing the countless thousands of disabled people who have problems accessing toilets was perfect.

Not sure what the transactivists on the committee would be able to disagree with her appointment on? Thinking women should have a voice maybe?

Does anyone know what comments the supreme court made about the interim guidance?

Women have rights too, and there are 8 other protected characteristics. It is the HUMAN rights act not the trans rights act, and the ECHR is not exclusively there for trans people's political wishes.

That really is the entire bone of contention right there. And there's no answer but polite, calm grey rocking: there won't be a point at which activists will understand or accept this. Her performance today sounds hopeful, because it's going to take a while to get the guidance embedded, and she's going to be repeating 'other people have rights too' in her sleep by the end of it.

Was it about the previous guidance - written when the trans extremists were in the ascendency ?

The Supreme Court only make comments in their ruling.

So that was a. Load of bollocks.

Again we keep hearing rights to privacy, article 8, being outed (😂) bla bla bla,

Matters none.

The redditors don't seem to be happy. Lots of them were bigging up that they'd secured assurances from their MPs that this would be a really harsh grilling. Considering the hostility from some members, she did well.

I thought Mary Anne Stephensons handling of the trans line of questioning was handled well by her. Her concern that the past 10 years of conversations have been handled badly re trans - absolutely based on our fear of being labelled phobic etc. I did think she used the Southall Black Sisters well - it outlined that in some circumstances you need people around you who have lived experience of your background/community etc. I may well be naive but it suggested she understands the need for niche groups who are receptive to the needs of people with a similar background/mindset etc. Disappointed in Baroness Kennedy. I grew up admiring her. Sarah Owen’s failure to jump in and suggest it was not about toilets - as she has said before - laughable when DHK had made it only about toilets.

I agree she was measured in her responses.

I really wanted her to say - I agree no one should be taking photos in public toilets, particularly over and under stalls. How many men have been convicted of doing that in women’s toilets?

That's what I wondered. The ruling itself did sort of imply that the previous guidance was wrong because it didn't distinguish between GRC and non-GRC holders, as it should have according to Haldane. So the question was a trap. But the questioner didn't look bright enough to come up with such sleight of hand, so.....🤷‍♀️

It becomes ever clearer that the intent of trans rights activists is to remove women's rights and/or ride roughshod over women's consent. Trans people can use toilets according to their sex, or unisex / mixed-sex toilets. Of which there are many. Pretty simple really.

Helena Kennedy is obviously very invested in this and also very emotionally, perhaps even personally involved, given her trembling voice here. Quite a surprising performance from a well known barrister.

She must have a NB niece, or some nonsense.

It’s almost a cliche, at this point.

She seems like a great candidate as she is committed to impartiality and advocating for all protected characteristics (which in the eyes of TRAs makes her a raging transphobe 🙄).

When do we find out if she has been successful?

The process is: the committee will agree a report, which will be sent to the Minister who may want to respond to any points they raise.

Then the Minister will confirm the appointment and it will be announced. Might take a few weeks to get all the approvals sorted.

Even if the committee don't like the candidate, the Minister isn't bound to follow them and can appoint her anyway, but committees try to avoid putting appointees in that position, and she didn't really give the TRAs on the committee substantive grounds for opposing her.

I was just thinking that. She was seething.

Yes. She was much more hostile and emotional than anyone else there. There's going to be a personal connection. And I'm leaning towards the idea that committee members, when they disclose their conflicts of interest, should have to state those connections.

We're going to see ever more extreme behaviour I think as the penny starts to drop for those who have been involved in 'affirming' something without a medical evidence base that is risky both psychologically and physically for children in their lives. As the logical arguments and evidence of harm mounts, and people are no longer bullied into silence, at some level they realise what they've done. This is why they're so angry.

But yes, 100% agree anyone in a public position with this sort of personal conflict of interest should disclose it.

This strikes me as a difficult position to comment on. Firstly because it requires her to make a statement on law, where the law is not necessarily simple to explain (and as i understand it does not forbid this activity outright). And secondly, even if she considers it proper to comment simply on the appropriateness, but not legality of the behavior, consider the situation of a man who simply goes into the woman's toilets to sexually harasses a women. Should the women not be able to document this? Why would they have less rights to document abuse in their own facilities which a man is violating, as opposed to in the general public?

The question was obviously a reference to a JKR's tweet. But even if you disapprove of her call to fight back against aggressive scofflaws, it's still unwise to simply make a snap condemnation in a forum like this.

I wondered if she was actually referring to comments made by a former supreme court judge (can't remember name) just after the decision

I absolutely agree she handled it really well. I wouldn’t have expected anything else, it was just what I was thinking as a response.

Sumption. That would be even more dishonest.

Wholly agree.

This was a good example why a personal stake in this is incompatible with public duty. There were a number of people really trying to elicit that she would be 'on the TRA side' and 'against' women and women's rights. That was the desired answer. Anything other than that, neutrality, equality of consideration - is 'hate' in this belief system.

But neutrality and equality of consideration and representation is what a job in public service is about.

I just heard ‘compassion, be nice, compassion, be nice, be nice’. It sounds like what women get all the time. I wonder if a male candidate would have got the same ‘just be nice’ type question.
Zero compassion the other direction for the past 10 years, or now. No transpeople conflicted about distressing women at any time.

Im always impressed at the waffle these committees can pull out, and how unintelligent some politicians are, asking the same question 3 times, my good life.

I want to know what Helena Kennedy's idea of 'dressed as an ageing woman' is.

Interesting turn of phrase too; implies some level of deceit.

OMG Helena Kennedy is a bloke!!!!! 😂