Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights

waz@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Armand1@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That’s the narrative, but trans rights have been taken away. Ask anyone who is being forced to put themselves by going to their “sex assigned at birth” bathroom, or being forced to use the accessible toilets.

  Not to speak of the increased trans-spotting, and the fact women can now be searched by male police officers (trans or cis) for being suspected of being trans.

  And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people, outing them to their employers and potential employers.

  source

  • rah@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people

    I’m curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?

    source

    • Armand1@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Well, I’m not an expert in this stuff, but here’s a couple of starting points

      • This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass
      • The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
      • The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
      • Last year, the UK government banned the use of puberty blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).

      Generally, rather than listening to experts, the government cherry picks bad research (similar to weirdos saying vaccines cause autism) and listens to and emboldens hate groups.

      source

      • rah@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass

        “to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests.”

        From what I can tell, this isn’t about creating a register of trans people, this is about collecting “sex at birth” alongside other data for any “identity verification requests” which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.

        • The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
        • The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
        • Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).

        None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.

        I don’t understand how you went from this stuff you’ve linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?

        source
  • waz@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That’s my point about permissiveness, if the rights weren’t there about self identifying, but everyone’s ok with it, then it feels like more rights, which may or may not be supported in law. But then when a lack of support in law is being enforced by bad feeling alone, people who want to cry about who’s using which toilet, then the end result is that it feels like a loss of rights. I think it’s a bad thing, but I also understand that in law, being able to do something without a fuss, and then later not being able to, is nothing to do with rights unless the law actually changed.

    source

    • zazazaza@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      human rights are not just based on what the law says…

      if a community that had an unwritten custom that everyone could access the village well, and then a new ruler passed a law restricting certain people from the well, would you say no rights were violated since well access was never legally codified?

      unless of course you’re a feudalist/capitalist that supports the commons enclosures or the Highland “clearances”…

      source