Comment

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

TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion.

She’s a TERF that the Tories put in place (Boris Johnson, 2020). It’s utterly absurd that the head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is against equality.

Her contract ends in November this year. I hope she’s swapped with someone more appropriate for the role.

source

Sort:hotnew top

rah@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?

It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion

This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity.

source
- TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance, but she is the one who runs the EHRC and what they do/say. She sets the culture. She’s the boss.
  
  This commissioner is talking in this way because it’s the message that comes from the top.
  
  source
  - rah@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point
    
    I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)
    
    I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance
    
    I’m glad to hear that.
    
    source
    TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)
    
    I know what she said, and it doesn’t undermine my point.
    
    She is acting as if nothing has changed, when something has changed: the actions of the EHRC.
    
    The law hasn’t changed, but the EHRC is dubiously using the SC’s verdict to push for anti-trans measures in gov departments.
    
    Why are you still not addressing my comment?
    
    I’m glad to hear that.
    
    Ok?
    
    Now are you going to address what I said or not?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I don’t really know what would change whenever you say “women” in the equality act refers to biological. Isn’t it already against the act to discriminate against someone for being trans anyway?

source
- OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  There’s a bunch of women specific legislation in the equality act as well.
  
  For example, it allows for the existence of women only spaces which include gyms, refuges and toilets.
  
  If you say that women is used in its biological sense, you’re saying that trans men can use these spaces but trans women can’t.
  
  However, the ehrc is going full terf and saying that despite the ruling that women is used in its biological sense, they think that all trans people should be prohibited from using some of these spaces.
  
  source