Submitted 3 weeks ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah I’m not gonna change what bathroom I go to because a bunch of fascist nonpeople called a sham trial about it.
nonpeople
O_o
When North Carolina and Mississippi passed anti-LGBT laws, that mandated trans people use the toilets of their assigned sex among other things, the Foreign Office issued travel advice warning LGBT tourist against travel there. Reindorf is now trying to introduce the same here and has the gall to tell trans people to stop overreacting to them becoming second class citizens by her hand.
Misleading title, they’re apparently not reducing rights, they’re communicating that the rights have not changed, but assumptions were incorrectly made and it ‘feels like reduced rights’ It’s not a nice thing to learn and needs to be handled carefully and compassionately, even a policy to be permissive and encourage to normalise what the assumed increase in rights were working towards making them actual rights. But yeah, antagonistic headlines as ways.
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.
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?
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.
hahahahahaha
no
Can’t this be solved by requesting that trans people use the disabled bathroom? And maybe mandating that a gender neutral bathroom be made available (can also double as a disabled one)
That’s not really fair on disabled people, their facilities are already limited and having a bunch of non-disabled people add strain will only exasperate that. Also, forcing trans people to use a special trans toilet will also out them in public and potentially make them less safe.
This is also such a non-issues, trans people have been using the toilets of their gender identity for literal decades and it’s only become an issue now, and only because of well funded activist groups, not any issues in the real world.
I’d say it would be the implication that trans people are disabled which is the most problematic part of the disabled toilet suggestion. In terms of practicalities I don’t think there are enough trans people in the UK to cause significant queues at disabled toilets.
I don’t think transgender people are plentiful enough that disabled facilities will be overwhelmed
Or just make all bathrooms gender neutral and stop obsessing about what genitals people are born with. It really doesn’t matter, it’s none of our business.
May be a bit more expensive to do that, but I have been places where this is the case
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
The EHRC are political appointments that were selected for agreeing with the politics of the previous government.
That’s why they sound like anti trans activists.
The whole thing needs to be burnt down. There’s no room for political appointees in legal bodies.