Excellent from Trevor Phillips

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Oh he gets it

x.com/trevorptweets/status/2057780825148490016?s=46

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ to Trevor Phillips

I'm not sure. I think the bits you have bolded are actually quite clear. If you say "I'm going to transition/am transitioning/have transitioned" then the PC applies. For me, the vague and mercurial bit is "reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex". That's a problem because it gets all metaphysicial and no one knows what it means. You need some common understanding to make sense of the term, and that common understanding (what does it mean to say that sex is "assignable"? What attributes of sex are there other than physiological? Does typical female behaviour - so far as that exists - get included as part of sex?) just isnt there. It's all about interpretation. But is the standard of interpretation the "reasonable person in law?" Who is that reasonable person? The man on the Clapham ominbus? But there's more than one Clapham omnibus these days, and they are all going in different directions. Or is it left entirely to those with "lived experience" - those who claim transitioner status? How do you determine lived experience in a court of law without creating some kind of legal test? What legal test? It's like trying to legislate about fairies at the bottom of the garden without having any idea of what fairies are because - well - because they don't exist, and certainly not at the bottom of any garden. Probably.

In the 1890s the US supreme court ruled that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit. They did it for tax purposes, and justified it as far as I recall (I read about it - I'm not that old) by saying that yes, tomatoes are biologically fruit, but for culinary purposes should be considered vegetables. In the New York tax context at the time, it was realistic to assume that tomatoes were being imported for salads and cooking and not to take any rightful place in the family fruit bowl. The justification worked because it was real and made sense and adressed a specified, real problem which had to be solved - do you pay the vegetable tax on imported tomatoes or not? It was a coin toss, and the Supreme Court came down, unsurprisingly, on the side of New York tax authorities. But the issue of sex reassignment is not in any way so clear cut. So you have the clause in the 2004 gender recognition act which basically says that anyone changing their sex changes it for everything unless we have said/ say/ might in the future say it doesn't in another law.

The law was clarified last year in the FWS case. That should be an end to the matter, but it won't be.

I don't think it is new - some of the legal people on here have pointed out before that there's no age restriction.
I've argued that it should be tested in court as the protection offered to children for the PC of age and society's responsibility to safeguard the young is undermined by this.

I don't believe for a split second that the politicians originally involved in this ever thought it should apply to little children. But as usual, the implications were never thought through and the trans zealots with children in their sights would have insisted that it must apply to all ages.

Such is the danger of creating a sacred caste who claim to be the experts and believe that only they can dictate policy and practice.

Hmmm, disappointed about that, but if it isn't new, I guess I'll have to live with it. It's like beating my head against a wall sometimes, you close one loophole only to find another.

He's getting piled on by useful idiots and TRAs bringing out all the usual long debunked "points"
I don't suppose he cares though.

Yeah, I expect he is well aware of how trans activists would react.

A great, lucid and helpful post from him.

And look where we are now with the rape gangs. It speaks volumes that the labour party suspended him rather than listen to him. He is worth ten times the whole lot of them IMO. Always has been. Yes he has been speaking out about this ideology for years.

I had to come back and post again today because I really want people to read Trevor Phillips’ X post again carefully — and then read it again. Once you see what he is actually saying, you can’t unsee it.

I’m honestly shocked that so few people seem troubled by the way women are portrayed in it and the clumsy linking and conflating of issues.

Look closely at the outdated, paternalistic narrative running through the piece: vulnerable women needing to rely on men to protect them — despite the fact that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence against women 3000 times a day in the uk (reported assaults only against women)

Women are framed relationally — as wives, as connected to others rather than just as individual women they are — while men are framed as individuals with agency and authority. And notice something else: women are defined only as wives. Where are the women who are civil partners, life partners, girlfriends, friends, or simply women in their own right?

That language reveals a very particular and deeply conservative social view of identity and gender roles.

What also concerns me is the way he conflates entirely separate issues into one continuous narrative. Male violence against women, women’s fear in public spaces, single-sex services, the Equality Act, self-ID, and trans inclusion are all folded together as though they are the same issue and present the same form of risk and occupy the same threat landscape

They do not.

I do not need a man with archaic narratives about women and their place in society to speak for me. I can speak for myself as a woman in my own right. And I certainly do not need men to “protect” me while simultaneously refusing to confront the reality of their male violence against women.

If his concern is violence against women, then he should simply write: men, stop.

And on self-ID, the claims being made are wildly overblown. The evidence from countries operating self-ID systems does not support the level of panic being promoted. In my view, this is an attempt to generate fear without a credible evidential basis. That leap is political, not evidential.

What also concerns me is his claim that trans people have “non-existent rights” rather than competing rights. Given his involvement in shaping the Equality Act, that distinction matters enormously and is deeply worrying.

I implore you to read again with eyes 👀 wide open and to not fall into a trap of being grateful to be counted even if it’s in this lowly cap in hand way. Trevor Phillips - to me he clearly has his own agenda about trans people and he is no ally to women

I’ll post below what I would expect of someone who is really coming from an equalities standpoint and recognising women’s genuine concerns

What he could have said as a genuine ally

The new EHRC guidance has prompted strong reactions, but I think it is important to approach the issue carefully and respectfully.

Women’s safety matters. Many women experience public space differently from men and make daily calculations about vulnerability, risk and personal security that men may not always notice or fully understand. Those concerns deserve to be listened to seriously.

At the same time, this debate should not be framed as though trans people have no rights or protections. The challenge is how to balance competing rights and protected characteristics within the framework of the Equality Act.

In my view, the guidance is intended to provide greater legal clarity around single-sex spaces and services. People will disagree about whether it achieves that fairly, but the discussion should remain grounded in evidence rather than fear or hostility.

I also think institutions should be transparent and consistent about how they apply the law, rather than allowing public pressure alone to shape policy.

These are complicated issues involving dignity, safety, privacy and inclusion for different groups of people. We will not resolve them well if we caricature one another’s concerns or turn every disagreement into a culture war.

If his concern is violence against women, then he should simply write: men, stop.

By Jove, why has nobody tried this before?!

I know right??? I mean why did no one mention that before??

other ppl are free to dislike his framing, I personally have no problem with it

I think you missed “too much heat, not enough light”.

Look closely at the outdated, paternalistic narrative running through the piece: vulnerable women needing to rely on men to protect them

No, this is not what I see.

women are defined only as wives.

No they are not. Read it again more carefully.

And on self-ID, the claims being made are wildly overblown.

You don't know that there has been no detrimental impact from self-ID in other countries until you ask every single person in that country and they say no. Self-ID in the UK would be a death knell to all women's rights. You cannot protect women's sex-based rights if you let everybody and his/her dog decide what a woman is.

Your version, if you will excuse my bluntness, is wordy without any justification for the amount of words; waffly sophistry; and a "Be Kind" borderline apologist statement that would make any moderate TRA (if there is such a person) proud, except for the fact that they weren't able to force the guidance to remove all women's rights.

And as we've observed many times, in countries where self ID is legal, everything is recorded by gender rather than sex so how would you know?

in Portugal which does have self ID, Portugal's National Union of Prison guards threatened to strike over the housing of a transgender woman in a women's prison. The TW had attached several guards and set fire to his cell but that didn't stop the authorities moving him into the women's estate. Just like in many European counties, Portugal brought in self Id quietly along with laws eg around equal marriage. Most ppl had no idea that they'd all signed up to erase the category of woman as a meaningful category because it now included "oh and some men"

He's writing as a man. His target audience is, above all, men. He's using rhetoric to make his points forcefully. And he's saying men have responsibilities here. As they do.

Claims of patriarchal paternalism in this context feel as unjustified as arguing it's racist to speak of to black and white keys on a piano.

Yes, pianos have differently coloured keys. This doesn't mean they relate to race. Yes, women are often positioned as defined by and secondary to men. This doesn't mean that's being done here.

but the discussion should remain grounded in evidence rather than fear or hostility.

This is what women have been trying to do for more than a decade. The hostility did not come from us, and we have been the ones experiencing the fear.

We have offered and produced evidence. TRAs have only ever offered lies, exaggerations, intimidation, and threats.

At the same time, this debate should not be framed as though trans people have no rights or protections.

Women never said that trans people had no rights. We have always said that they have the same rights as everyone else. What the TRAs want are additional rights, lots of desires, and for women to have no rights.

And they also wanted No Debate.

I also think institutions should be transparent and consistent about how they apply the law, rather than allowing public pressure alone to shape policy.

Who doesn't want this? I'm fairly certain Trevor would as well. Unfortunately that has not been happening.

We will not resolve them well if we caricature one another’s concerns or turn every disagreement into a culture war.

Again, women have not been doing this. TRAs turned their unreasonable demands into a war.

And, finally, who said Trevor needed to be an "ally?" He's his own person, with his own opinions. To whom is he supposed to be an ally?

'In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman.'

Utter bullshit.

Trevor Phillips was Chair of EHRC when they produced the 2011 stat code.

It said things like this:

'If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate.

'any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances.'

I found the consultation documents on archived EHRC pages. Put the following links in web dot archive dot org for archive pages with downloadable links:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legislative-framework/equality-bill/equality-bill-codes-of-practice-consultation/

The original draft of the 2011 stat code was very sensible and just went through what the EA says in clear language. That's not the version we ended up with. The post-consultation report says:

'Various transsexual stakeholder groups responded to the formal consultation and also participated in the parallel consultation events taking place on the non-statutory guidance. Feedback from the consultation events was incorporated into the employment and services codes where appropriate, particularly on issues of confidentiality, use of single sex services and the legal definition of transgender.

'A number of concerns were raised about the exceptions, in particular the exceptions for charities, single sex services and separate services.
These sections have been revised as a result.'

At the end of the document there is a list of those consulted which includes Press for Change, GIRES and a:gender (the civil service TRA org).

Trevor Phillips oversaw the original TRA capture of EHRC.

Enough with the fawning! I'm glad he's speaking up now but he has never acknowledged his HUGE part in the removal of our rights in the first place.

👏👏👏

Trevor Phillips was often helpful to his political masters by denying the relevance of racism to particular situations; I suppose you can't head a very political quango without some ability to compromise.

I think that describes a lot of people with this issue.

They think, of course men wouldn't be in women's prisons, three year olds wouldn't be trans, the state/medical profession would never allow that.

I remember telling my mum that the policy of the prison service here in Canada was that men who self-identified would go to women's prisons - she actually didn't believe me and questioned where I had read it and whether it was a real news source.

It actually ended up being kind of a red-pill experience for her, suddenly all kinds of things she had believed must be hoaxes or disinformation became possibly real.

Trevor is that rare creature, the man that gets it. Who has empathy and respect for women and girls. That is one for my vanishingly short list of men who really get it. And a shaming for all the women who ought to get it, but don't - all the lesbians who have had nothing to say about womens' hard fought rights being destroyed, all the rich and famous women who could have been brave and fought for us, but took the cowards way out. All the powerful women who scolded us outspoken women and told us to be kind to the men destroying our safe spaces should hang their heads in shame that a man states the obvious common sense when they refuse to. If only there were more like him.

I wonder if the issue here is whether or not kids can or should have gender reassignment isn't really a legal question?

If kids could in fact qualify for it, and if it should be a protected class, then yes, it would also include kids.

More and more I think many of these issues come down to the medical field and the fact that they have shat the bed on this issue to an extent that is almost unimaginable. Schools, the toilet questions, and all the rest. It all comes down to this medical and scientific quagmire.

I think that's probably the point of it.

You don't think maybe he just thought it wasn't relevent?