Under David Isaac’s reign, guidance was produced that didn’t comply with the law and instead reflected activists preferences, so it’s not surprising that that the TRAs expect their lobbying to deliver what they want.
Circumventing public debate and drafting/ redrafting policy and guidance to reflect the law as they wanted it to be, not the law as it is (the Denton strategy) was always going to fail. They believed the momentum created by this strategy would bring permanence. They thought the Contact Hypothesis that worked so well for same sex attracted people (ever growing numbers of being ‘out’ and increased exposure to gay people, resulting in reduced hostility and fear) would mean that by the time people realised the law wasn’t reflective of what was happening, without issue, no one would object.
However, the Contact Hypothesis that served same sex attracted people does not apply to trans people. A significant proportion of people with trans identities are damaged, damaging or both, and this is evident to those who spend time with them. This is why the Denton Strategy was destined to fail.
I am not surprised by the levels of denial and disbelief TRAs are experiencing. Their self perceived ‘gains’ and ‘rights’ were a mirage but they experienced them as tangible because nothing was in the way of acting upon them as if they were real.
Most TRAs do not seem to recognise that there is no going back and the genie is out of the bottle. Their misrepresentations of the law have been exposed, their success with avoiding scrutiny whilst making significant headway in influencing policy and practice has led to intense scrutiny that would never had arisen if they had been more open from the start.
Their reaction to all this is exacerbating the phenomenon that is the opposite of the Contact Hypothesis. I think this could be called the ‘Let them Speak’ hypothesis!