A great deal of the obvious bullshit involved - boils down to ignoring the fact cubicles exist.
I'm not sure this is fair. Cubicles exist, but are not ubiquitous, and modesty norms are as much to do with not seeing other people naked as they are to do with other people not seeing you naked. "Cubicles exist" is only really an argument if private cubicles are the only changing facility provided, and whilst there are some facilities like that, they are not the majority.
Clearly mileage varies, but I cannot recall in all my adult life any changing room, public bog or indeed any facility at all where I have had to disrobe in front of strangers or have them do so in my presence. Cubicles have certainly been ubiquitous in my experience.
I seem to remember her saying not only that they ran through as fast as possible, but that the PE teacher was also observing to ensure that everyone did in fact shower...
When I was at school, our PE teacher used to sit in the corner of the changing room with a stopwatch. He carried the standard grade book that all the teachers had, but whereas other teachers wrote down marks for tests and homeworks, he wrote down the time it took each child to shower, dress, and present themselves to him.
Have you checked for his name in the sex offenders' register?
Speaking again for the old gits, this is probably related to the kinds of places you go. We old gits tend to go to hotel spas, golf clubs and tennis clubs where the norm is an open changing room. In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
It is true that in more enlightened council-run leisure facilities there are more cubicles although thinking of one that I went to recently there was a single cubicle for a large changing room. The old gits were still parading around naked there.
I'm an oldish git these days but you may be right; I have never in my life entered a hotel spa, golf or tennis club. I can't afford the first* and I'm too shit at any sports whatsoever to consider the others.
*I did many years ago go to the spa at a CentreParks. I don't recall any shared changing rooms but to be honest my main memory is how the whole experience was one of the most boring and tedious experiences of my entire life.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
Abusive people exist, I'm not sure this is news to anyone.
The fact that an abuser has in the past found to be a teacher doesn't make all teachers abusers.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations.
Yes this. It was and still is a massive moral panic driven by well- funded hate groups large segments of the media. I watched it take off - the number of hate articles in The Times and Sunday Times alone was staggering. Self- ID was just an excuse for them to hang things on and a way for them to fearmonger using the old fascist tactic of
' the degenerate other is a sex offender who endangers the women and children!'
The same one they used on gay people and black people and migrants etc.
We used to have a poster here whose shtick was to constantly mention gay people in the same breath as paedophiles - it's the same game. And part of the danger of these discussions is that we've now got politicians and the media relentlessly hammering in toxic narratives that put trans people in the same breath as smears.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations.
And you’re assuming the opposite. If your assumption is correct then it’s remarkably coincidental timing, especially given the positive public opinion of trans people that pertained previously.
Essentially, something happened that changed the overall UK environment from positive to one that, while not I think negative overall, is now sufficiently sceptical for the right wing media and US groups to gain traction. I’ve already said what I think it was.
If it were about self-ID this judgement would not have been sought as it's specifically about those with GRCs, who have been through extensive and intrusive assessment.
There’s a difference between the exact legal terms and scope of the Supreme Court ruling and the wider motivations and beliefs of people who do not agree with all aspects of current progressive thought on the subject. I was responding to a post saying “they” want to banish all trans people, and I’m pretty sure that comment cannot be said to apply to the Supreme Court judgement itself. Responding to it while restricting myself only to the terms and scope of the judgement would be difficult!
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
Abusive people exist, I'm not sure this is news to anyone.
The fact that an abuser has in the past found to be a teacher doesn't make all teachers abusers.
I’m not talking about abuse.
Why are "they" worried about self ID if it isn't some kind of moral panic about the potential abuse of cis women by transwomen? If it isn't about abuse, what is it about?
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations.
And you’re assuming the opposite. If your assumption is correct then it’s remarkably coincidental timing, especially given the positive public opinion of trans people that pertained previously.
Why would it be particularly coincidental? It largely tracks with coverage in the wider media. I've seen more detailed analysis previously covering the entire media, and can dig it up again, but as a summary:
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations.
And you’re assuming the opposite.
It's not an assumption when we watched it happen in real time. The coincidence of timing can be linked to the Obergefell decision in the US that pushed US conservative groups away from the legislatively lost cause of equal marriage and on to trans people as a less protected target. This accords with these groups pumping money into the likes of LGB Alliance and other astroturf (or rather TERF) groups.
The newspapers/media were using abuse narratives - they use salience to demonise. If they want to make sure a group don't get rights they headline/ stick on the front page/ give undue salience to talking about any abusers or criminals from that group they can dig up - while at the same time carrying stuff from hate groups/ persecutors saying 'these people are a danger - giving them rights will make them more dangerous!'
They make tiny groups and minorities look dangerous because readers are always hearing at great length about one of them who did 'awful thing X' when in fact they are usually just as likely or much less likely to do that than other parts of the population. It's the same with things like benefit fraud - the numbers are tiny but if the press constantly harp on about it they make it sound like a big and common and disproportionate problem.
This is how moral panics work - the key to them is that they are disproportionate. They manufacture danger where none exists or blow up tiny proportional risks ( every group has some bad people in it) to disproportionate ones that demonise whatever group they'd like to demonise today.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations.
And you’re assuming the opposite. If your assumption is correct then it’s remarkably coincidental timing, especially given the positive public opinion of trans people that pertained previously.
Why would it be particularly coincidental? It largely tracks with coverage in the wider media. I've seen more detailed analysis previously covering the entire media, and can dig it up again, but as a summary:
When the Scottish government- then the Scottish executive under Labour- moved to repeal section 2A, Scottish tabloids, other media, and hate groups blew up a huge moral panic against LGBT+ people, actual attacks on LGBT+ people ramped up, the newspapers splashed any gay sex offender they could find on their front pages and letters pages allowed letters which came out with the worst demonisations and characterisations of gay people. It temporarily succeeded in driving up prejudice and disapproval of the measure - that's what moral panics do.
The fault wasn't gay people not wanting to be discriminated against and have their families treated as non existent or second class, nor was it the fault of the government who listened or did something.
It was the newspapers and hate mongers - some of whom were rich people who spent a lot of money to try to harm a tiny harmless minority with false claims that they were a danger to children.
It was wrong then and wrong now when the target is trans people. Stop blaming attempts to fight persecution for causing persecution. It's a deliberate and wicked decision on the persecutors' part that they're going to double and treble down and run a campaign in the media and in the courts. And it's a disgrace when the media enable it and further it.
I forgot to add that in contrast in 2017 ‘self id’ was uncontroversial enough for Theresa May (no social liberal) to propose a version of it.
Maybe that’s what happened?
It wouldn't fit the timeline, public perception is relatively static until some time later - after several years of media coverage which is almost entirely negative.
I forgot to add that in contrast in 2017 ‘self id’ was uncontroversial enough for Theresa May (no social liberal) to propose a version of it.
Maybe that’s what happened?
That’s only if the case if you believe the deliberate ‘misunderstanding’ of the purpose of self ID that gender critical groups espoused. The sole purpose of Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) is to enable transgender people to amend the sex listed on their Birth Certificate. That and nothing else. It has no other purpose. It has nothing to do, for instance, with what facilities we use or whether we use pronouns in our email signatures.
Amending our Birth Certificates enables us to get married in our ‘affirmed gender’ (the legal term for it), retire at the appropriate age (it enables a change of sex marker on HMRC -the UK tax office - records) and, more importantly , it gives us dignity when we die; if we’ve got a GRC and an amended Birth Certificate, we can be buried as ourselves. I know of several instances where a trans woman has died and estranged family members have swooped in, claimed the body as their nearest and dearest, excluded the deceased’s partner, and had a funeral conducted with no mention of the deceased’s female name or that she had been a woman for the great majority of her adult life. That part of their life were completely ignored; they were misgendered and their birth names used throughout. In one case that I know of, not everyone at the funeral even knew until then that their friend had had a ‘previous’ life. Prior to GRCs and amended Birth Certificates and even where there was goodwill, people had to be buried or cremated under their birth gender, with their lived experience completely ignored. Even now, only 1% of transgender people have a GRC, so if/when they pass away, that still happens.
Oh — and how do you get one of these magic GRCs? You apply for it. Someone I know recently applied for hers, and she had to supply 45 pages of supporting evidence to say that she is who she says she is, that her gender change is permanent and that she intends to live in her affirmed role for the rest of her life. The supporting documentation has to include a combination of medical reports, details of what hormones you have had prescribed, what surgery you’ve had (if any at that point), your change of name deed, a legal affidavit, your original Birth Certificate, utility bills dating back at least two years, an employer’s report or payslips and various other documents. A panel of experts then examines all this evidence and decides within the following 22 weeks whether you can have the Magic Piece of Paper.
So where does the self-ID bit come in?
Purely and simply, the waiting list for a first appointment to see a gender specialist is currently years long rather than months. Many people are already living in their new role by the time they get there, so the plan was to was to remove the necessity for the medical report and instead to enable you to swear a legal affidavit that you have moved to your affirmed gender role as of whatever date and that you intend to live in the said affirmed gender for the rest of your life. That was all. That was the proposed self-ID. A document sworn in front of a duly authorised person instead of a letter from a doctor. Oh, and of course it hasn’t even been adopted. Furthermore, you’d still need all the other supporting documentation.
I know this is a long explanation, but there's been so much rubbish in the press that I think it's worth clarifying. I do not believe that the general public are aware of this.
*Fireworks sold in the UK have the instruction ‘Light the blue touchpaper and retire.’
When the Scottish government- then the Scottish executive under Labour- moved to repeal section 2A, Scottish tabloids, other media, and hate groups blew up a huge moral panic against LGBT+ people, actual attacks on LGBT+ people ramped up, the newspapers splashed any gay sex offender they could find on their front pages and letters pages allowed letters which came out with the worst demonisations and characterisations of gay people. It temporarily succeeded in driving up prejudice and disapproval of the measure - that's what moral panics do.
The fault wasn't gay people not wanting to be discriminated against and have their families treated as non existent or second class, nor was it the fault of the government who listened or did something.
It was the newspapers and hate mongers - some of whom were rich people who spent a lot of money to try to harm a tiny harmless minority with false claims that they were a danger to children.
It was wrong then and wrong now when the target is trans people. Stop blaming attempts to fight persecution for causing persecution. It's a deliberate and wicked decision on the persecutors' part that they're going to double and treble down and run a campaign in the media and in the courts. And it's a disgrace when the media enable it and further it.
@Marvin the Martian You don't have to be persuaded, but you don't get to drown out the trans voices (shared through links and posted here) just because you don't like what they are saying.
In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
Using your nudity to intentionally make someone, of any sex or gender, feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. I am guessing it doesn’t get reported though.
Merely being naked in a place where one is both allowed and expected to be naked is not any kind of harassment.
Modesty norms are complicated. Some people don't care at all if they are seen naked, some people try as hard as they can to keep their nakedness concealed, and there's a range of middle ground. Mrs C used to work with a woman who would cycle quite some distance to work, strip off in the ladies' toilet, and go to work at the sinks with a washcloth before changing into the work attire she had brought with her. This woman's point of view was "we're all women, you know what bits I've got, it doesn't matter if you see them." Most of her colleagues would not have chosen to do the same.
Most people are happy to wear (or not wear) things on the beach that they wouldn't dream of wearing on the high street, even though both beaches and high streets contain the same set of other people.
...
I don’t think the Supreme Court itself has made any decision about gender identity. It is however clearly the court’s view that the Equality Act 2010 does not recognise complex gender identity.
I think it would be quite difficult to reach any other conclusion.
The word "gender" is used 69 times in the Equality Act 2010 (by my count). The majority of uses refer to "gender reassignment" (42 times). The remaining uses relate to sport ("gender-affected activity"), marriage and/or civil partnership (referring to "acquired gender" and the Gender Recognition Act 2004), gender pay gap information, benefits relating to marital status when a gender recognition certificate has been issued to one of the couple and the GRA 2004 a couple more times.
It seems to me unlikely that the EA 2010 was ever intended to address a person's gender identity or gender expression, or the broader issue of gender when used in that sense. Which in turn means those characteristics are not recognised as protected characteristics, and people are not given protection against discrimination or harassment on the basis of the characteristics under the Act.
Single sex changing facilities at places like swimming pools are rubbish. Aside the questions over trans people, they can be a real headache for people with children of the opposite sex. I vote for cubicles for everyone, with a few extra large ones for wheelchair users and people accompanying small humans.
Single sex changing facilities at places like swimming pools are rubbish. Aside the questions over trans people, they can be a real headache for people with children of the opposite sex. I vote for cubicles for everyone, with a few extra large ones for wheelchair users and people accompanying small humans.
Which is how the public leisure centres of West Northants mostly work, thankfully. As an aside, I wonder if that’s because the council’s estate of leisure centres is relatively new on the whole.
Single sex changing facilities at places like swimming pools are rubbish. Aside the questions over trans people, they can be a real headache for people with children of the opposite sex. I vote for cubicles for everyone, with a few extra large ones for wheelchair users and people accompanying small humans.
Which is how the public leisure centres of West Northants mostly work, thankfully. As an aside, I wonder if that’s because the council’s estate of leisure centres is relatively new on the whole.
Even 30 years ago the new pool in my home town had cubicles, though it did have communal changing for school groups. I think a leisure centre with only communal changing would have to be pretty ancient by now.
In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
Using your nudity to intentionally make someone, of any sex or gender, feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. I am guessing it doesn’t get reported though.
Merely being naked in a place where one is both allowed and expected to be naked is not any kind of harassment.
Indeed, and that is not the concept I was responding to.
Even 30 years ago the new pool in my home town had cubicles, though it did have communal changing for school groups. I think a leisure centre with only communal changing would have to be pretty ancient by now.
I think they call the "modern" trend "changing village" or something like that. A whole set of unisex cubicles that open out on to a common corridor.
What was more common 30 years ago were single-sex changing rooms that contained a mix of open changing space and cubicles.
My own local pool in the US has traditional-style open changing rooms for men and women, plus a handful of "family" changing rooms. The men's room has open changing plus two cubicles in the corner, open showers, and the normal toilet arrangement. I assume the women's is similar. The family rooms have a shower head, a toilet, and a couple of benches.
What would it mean and need for us to stop policing each other's bodies? Would that need the kind of privacy being discussed? Or could it be achieved purely by a change of attitude? I'm sure this is a sign of some kind of privilege, but I am getting tired of the debate being conducted as if it's just the TERMS of this policing that are wrong. To me, it's the whole policing tendency that needs to be dismantled.
@pease the Equality Act joes part way there in protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
The Equality Act 2010 only recognises gender reassignment - "a process which is undertaken under medical supervision". I conclude that any process that doesn't involve medical supervision (eg self-determination) isn't recognised.
What struck me today is that what had appeared to be gradual progress in the UK towards some kind of formal recognition of self-determination of gender, has gone into reverse.
Furthermore, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the statutory body that enforces the Equality Act 2010. Overnight, its interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment has increased the amount of discrimination that even people *with* the protected characteristic of gender reassignment expect to experience.
What would it mean and need for us to stop policing each other's bodies? Would that need the kind of privacy being discussed? Or could it be achieved purely by a change of attitude? I'm sure this is a sign of some kind of privilege, but I am getting tired of the debate being conducted as if it's just the TERMS of this policing that are wrong. To me, it's the whole policing tendency that needs to be dismantled.
I think that the idea of separate facilities for different groups of people (for whatever purpose) inevitably includes within it some sort of policing of which people belong to which groups. I don't think the question of whether we're talking about changing rooms, sports teams, or reserved seats on committees makes much difference to that.
The mere fact of saying "this thing is for these kinds of people" implies that there is a consensus about who "these kinds of people" are, and in the case of trans people, we don't have such a consensus. At one end of the spectrum is a Trumpian bigotry exemplified by people like Nancy Mace, at the other end is complete affirmation of trans people, but there's a lot of middle ground - for example, people who are happy for trans women to pee in women's bathrooms, but don't think they should run in women's running races.
Reducing the number of places in which we discriminate between different groups of people (for example, by having single-user unisex facilities rather than shared single-sex facilities) would certainly reduce the number of opportunities for this "policing".
I think a leisure centre with only communal changing would have to be pretty ancient by now.
The one I used last week, and intend to use this week, is about 25 years old. It has three changing rooms - male, female and family. No idea what the configuration is of the "family" changing room. The changing rooms are for those using either the swimming pool, or the gym, or one of the sports halls, or the climbing wall. Not that I know anything about team sports, but my guess is that if they have something like a netball tournament on, they could have six teams changing at the same time? Plus those heading for the pool or gym? So it's those points of peak usage which mean that it's an open changing room rather than cubicles?
What would it mean and need for us to stop policing each other's bodies? Would that need the kind of privacy being discussed? Or could it be achieved purely by a change of attitude? I'm sure this is a sign of some kind of privilege, but I am getting tired of the debate being conducted as if it's just the TERMS of this policing that are wrong. To me, it's the whole policing tendency that needs to be dismantled.
The problem is the weaponisation of this, which turns theoretical problems into Supreme court cases and the widespread conflation of logically unsustainable positions.
It's conceivable that women-only shortlists could be flooded by transwomen, but that's not happening. I'm not sure what one should do about that possibility, but I'm very sure that having the Supreme Court issue a wide-ranging judgment that appears to be written by someone who hasn't thought very hard about the impacts of it is not the answer.
I can also see that there is a worry about dangerous abusers accessing single-sex facilities in order to find victims. But preventing transwomen from accessing these facilities seems at best a failure to address the problem and at worst extremely cruel.
I don't think the "debate" is about bodies. It's about the structures of society that allow bullying of minorities. Structures that once enabled the removal of people based on skin colour now needs a new scapegoat. It wasn't about bodies then and isn't now.
The problem is many local authority swimming pools are indeed pretty ancient, and that situation isn't likely to change any time soon. The change to "changing village" type facilities seemed to happen around the 1990s and there are lots of pools still in use that are older than that. The one down the road from us that our children are learning to swim at is I'm guessing 1960s and somewhat delapidated, but I know with the state of local authority finances, we have to be grateful it hasn't been closed down - there's zero funds available for reconfiguring the changing areas.
It's conceivable that women-only shortlists could be flooded by transwomen, but that's not happening.
It's partly not happening because a fraction of a percent of the population isn't enough people to flood anything, and the proportion of that who would be willing to put their heads above the parapet and be in the firing lining for standing for their rights is even smaller - even before the increasingly vehement rhetoric of the last few years, transwomen faced more than enough hostility that many chose to avoid the public eye.
What does appear to be happening is that organisations that have gender balancing policies (quotas or women-only lists) and also recognise all women in those policies face expensive law suits from other organisations claiming those policies discriminate against women. At least two political parties in Scotland have been forced by the threat of legal action to change their practices in selecting candidates for the 2026 election.
@pease the Equality Act joes part way there in protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
The Equality Act 2010 only recognises gender reassignment - "a process which is undertaken under medical supervision". I conclude that any process that doesn't involve medical supervision (eg self-determination) isn't recognised.
What struck me today is that what had appeared to be gradual progress in the UK towards some kind of formal recognition of self-determination of gender, has gone into reverse.
Furthermore, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the statutory body that enforces the Equality Act 2010. Overnight, its interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment has increased the amount of discrimination that even people *with* the protected characteristic of gender reassignment expect to experience.
pease
I’m asking you this question noting your insight and also any Shipmates with a legal background. I’d be interested in your take.
Is the EHRC interim guidance is in conflict with the Human Rights Act? The Good Law project clearly believes it is and since the European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty the UK is signed up to, it remains in force despite our withdrawal from the European Union. Under that convention, all public authorities have a duty to act in accordance with its principles.
It seems very strange to me that a public authority entitled the Equality and Human Rights Commission should issue guidelines which go against the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. They must have lawyers (or access to lawyers) available to vet those interim guidelines. Am I missing something? On the face of it the guidelines conflict with Article 8 (Privacy), Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), Article 11 (Freedom of Association) and Article 14 (Discrimination).
Has the UK, while remaining a signatory to the European Convention, also legislated in some way to deny its effect?
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
It's conceivable that women-only shortlists could be flooded by transwomen, but that's not happening.
It's partly not happening because a fraction of a percent of the population isn't enough people to flood anything, and the proportion of that who would be willing to put their heads above the parapet and be in the firing lining for standing for their rights is even smaller - even before the increasingly vehement rhetoric of the last few years, transwomen faced more than enough hostility that many chose to avoid the public eye.
What does appear to be happening is that organisations that have gender balancing policies (quotas or women-only lists) and also recognise all women in those policies face expensive law suits from other organisations claiming those policies discriminate against women. At least two political parties in Scotland have been forced by the threat of legal action to change their practices in selecting candidates for the 2026 election.
This is a bit chicken-and-egg in that the noise made by TERFs have meant that transwomen feel unsafe, and therefore there may have been more transwomen on these shortlists if there hadn't been the noise.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that efforts to encourage the participation of women rarely have much impact on inclusion of minorities. Usually there has to be a specific focus on minority inclusion for there to be anything other than white wealthy middle class people in these positions, and it isn't unusual for those in privileged positions (due to background and wealth) to see efforts to include others as a threat.
Often the language used is overtly sexist or racist, these people don't care. "Why should I care about these people when including them will reduce the number jobs for me" they often say.
In my experience efforts to include more people that don't fit the traditional modalities tend to also lead to more inclusion of women.
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
Labour should not have extended her contract. But what happens with her replacement will be the real test.
AFZ
From that link
Some staff members say the organisation remains split, with allies of the chair portraying the complaints as a “witch-hunt” against her by pro-transgender rights staff members after the EHRC backed changing the Equality Act 2010 so the protected characteristic of sex would mean biological sex, which would allow transgender women to be barred from single-sex spaces.
...which has now been achieved by the court ruling that it said that all along. Now I am confused.
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
The Good Law project has raised about a quarter of a million pounds so far (in a pretty short period of time). Standing should be interesting as will the timing of any case.
On the more general point, a good human rights case (and this looks like a good one to me) does cast a shadow over the legal competence of the EHRC. Remembering that E stands for equality, HR for Human Rights. I wonder whether lawyers were even consulted over the interim guidelines. As Carla Denyer of the Green Party observed, it is obvious that there was no prior consultation with any trans representatives. That’s bad enough.
This is a bit chicken-and-egg in that the noise made by TERFs have meant that transwomen feel unsafe, and therefore there may have been more transwomen on these shortlists if there hadn't been the noise.
There just aren't that many trans women. Out of roughly 17,000 local councillors in the UK, less than a dozen are trans. If public life was less hostile to trans people, perhaps that number would be a little larger, but we're still talking about a rather small number of people.
To my knowledge, one elected MP has said they are trans, ever (that was Conservative MP Jamie Wallis, who served one term as an MP from 2019 to 2024).
The idea that there's an army of trans women poised to exclude cis women from politics is obvious nonsense.
The idea that there's an army of trans women poised to exclude cis women from politics is obvious nonsense.
And even in the fantasy land where it is a problem, the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" standard would apply and you could discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment to promote a more balanced representation. The idea that trans women would ever be so overrepresented that "all cis woman" short lists for candidates were needed is a piece of obvious nonsense.
The act was drafted in response to court rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. ... The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of their rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this judgment, the UK Government had to introduce new legislation to comply.
Which I'm sure the UK Government always appreciates having to do. Also note the timelines in the section on updates.
Wikipedia hasn't always been good when it comes to minorities, discrimination and marginalisation, but maybe they've been addressing this deficit. In "See also", the above article links to an article on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom:
Since the late 2010s, the treatment of trans people in the UK has been an increasing source of controversy, particularly in regards to British news media. The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society. YouGov noted an "overall erosion in support towards transgender rights" among the general public by the early 2020s, and while Ipsos found that most Britons supported trans people getting protections for discrimination, support for gender-affirming healthcare in the UK was amongst the lowest of the thirty countries they studied.
Which includes a fairly wide-ranging section on public attitudes, which starts:
On 9 July 2022, Vogue reported that over 20,000 people marched in London to support trans rights. On 16 July, PinkNews reported that over 20,000 people marched in Brighton for the same cause. On 29 July 2024, a confirmed 55,000 to 60,000+ people attended London Trans+ Pride, making it biggest trans pride march in the world to date.
British media has been accused of bigotry towards transgender people, a lack of transgender voices and perspectives in the British media landscape, and publications that "sensationalise rather than humanise" trans people. Tara John, a senior writer for American broadcaster CNN, stated in October 2021 that "Anti-trans rhetoric is rife in the British media". Coverage of transgender related topics covered by The Daily Mail have been found to have increased by 1,817% between January 2013 and January 2023, with 100 out of the 115 Daily Mail articles in January 2023 (equating to 87%) being categorised as negative, whereas none of its articles related to transgender topics were in January 2013. From 2016, The Times started to publish "anti-trans news reports and columns every few days" according to PinkNews, which they state was then followed by The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Spectator, The New Statesman and BBC News. PinkNews notes this transphobia has come in multiple forms, one of which has been the false assumption that self-ID laws would increase the rate of sexual assaults, an assumption which has been unfounded in the multiple countries where this has been in place; countries of which make up between 1.5 and 2 billion of the total world population. British journalist Janice Turner was awarded for her comment journalism in December 2018, despite being criticised by LGBT+ campaigners, the trans community, and openly gay MP Stephen Doughty for "whipping up inflammatory prejudice against transgender people".
In April 2021, the Equality and Human Rights Commission submitted evidence backing Maya Forstater in Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe, wherein Forstater sued her employer, the Center for Global Development Europe, for not having her employment contract renewed after expressing gender-critical beliefs. PinkNews reported that the EHRC issued a statement saying "We think that a 'gender critical' belief that 'trans women are men and trans men are women' is a philosophical belief which is protected under the Equality Act".
In May 2021, the EHRC withdrew itself from Stonewall's diversity champions scheme.
In December 2021, barrister Akua Reindorf was appointed to the EHRC board of commissioners by Liz Truss.
In January 2022, the EHRC released dual statements opposing the removal of administrative barriers for trans people to receive legal recognition in Scotland, and asking that England and Wales' ban on conversion therapy not include trans people.
In February 2022, Vice News reported that it had been leaked sections of an unpublished EHRC guidance pack dating to late 2021, which advised businesses and organisations to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces - including toilets, hospital wards, and changing rooms - unless they held a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Vice reported that the guidance, which had been due to be released in January 2022, but had not been published as of February 2022, was aimed at "[protecting] women", and that just 1% of trans people in the UK held a GRC.
In May 2023, a United Nations investigation found that the EHRC had deliberately acted with the objective to reduce human rights protections for transgender women.
In July 2024, the EHRC released guidance clarifying that sex-based occupational requirements included sex as modified by a GRC, but that under schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010 employers were permitted to exclude transgender persons even with a GRC. The guidance stated that the basis and reasons for any occupational restrictions should be clearly stated in any advertisement.
Given recent history in the UK, a cynic might conclude that exploiting populist attitudes by provoking a fight with a European institution continues to be a politically expedient strategy.
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
The Good Law project has raised about a quarter of a million pounds so far (in a pretty short period of time). Standing should be interesting as will the timing of any case.
I hinted at this a couple of pages back but I really come close to despair if we’re reliant on that outfit. Very good at raising money certainly.
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
The Good Law project has raised about a quarter of a million pounds so far (in a pretty short period of time). Standing should be interesting as will the timing of any case.
I hinted at this a couple of pages back but I really come close to despair if we’re reliant on that outfit. Very good at raising money certainly.
They've been unreliable as trans allies in the past - and I appreciate the dangers of criticising lawyers but it would be helpful if people could link to solid/expert criticism if they have it.
I know people in my own field who have good credentials but crank views that you need to have expertise to identify- very famous professors who get a lot of media attention but who are (correctly) very poorly regarded by colleagues on a lot of their emissions. So I know seemingly well credentialed people with dodgy opinions can be a thing.
Obviously don't link anything libellous but if you know some good critique that isn't from some obvious anti-trans outfit I'd be interested to see it- especially if it's trans people themselves saying they're actually useless.
That was for the edit window. I note some anti trans people putting the boot in on them recently, with which I disagree. But I’m mostly aware of them from the great Brexit battles pre2020, which is well off topic.
The current EHRC leadership were specifically appointed for their anti-woke credentials - both anti-trans and being deliberately blind to structural racism. Breaching the HRA/ECHR doesn't actually cost them anything but costs plaintiffs who challenge them a great deal in time, money, and the psychological toll of having (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) famous authors set their attack dogs on them.
The Good Law project has raised about a quarter of a million pounds so far (in a pretty short period of time). Standing should be interesting as will the timing of any case.
I hinted at this a couple of pages back but I really come close to despair if we’re reliant on that outfit. Very good at raising money certainly.
That’s good. I’m also a fan of Robin Moira White, who I am aware of through railway preservation more than legal stuff, but that was the way in to her commentary for me.
That was for the edit window. I note some anti trans people putting the boot in on them recently, with which I disagree. But I’m mostly aware of them from the great Brexit battles pre2020, which is well off topic.
That was for the edit window. I note some anti trans people putting the boot in on them recently, with which I disagree. But I’m mostly aware of them from the great Brexit battles pre2020, which is well off topic.
My view is that it was a combination of QC brain (many lawyers have an over-exaggerated sense of their own reasoning abilities simply because they spend a large amount of their professional life with captive audiences, something visible when Maugham went on left-leaning twitch streams), and an assumption common to the middle-classes that if a thing appears logical it should and will be available as an offered policy choice.
Comments
I'm an oldish git these days but you may be right; I have never in my life entered a hotel spa, golf or tennis club. I can't afford the first* and I'm too shit at any sports whatsoever to consider the others.
*I did many years ago go to the spa at a CentreParks. I don't recall any shared changing rooms but to be honest my main memory is how the whole experience was one of the most boring and tedious experiences of my entire life.
I’m not talking about abuse.
The same one they used on gay people and black people and migrants etc.
We used to have a poster here whose shtick was to constantly mention gay people in the same breath as paedophiles - it's the same game. And part of the danger of these discussions is that we've now got politicians and the media relentlessly hammering in toxic narratives that put trans people in the same breath as smears.
And you’re assuming the opposite. If your assumption is correct then it’s remarkably coincidental timing, especially given the positive public opinion of trans people that pertained previously.
Essentially, something happened that changed the overall UK environment from positive to one that, while not I think negative overall, is now sufficiently sceptical for the right wing media and US groups to gain traction. I’ve already said what I think it was.
There’s a difference between the exact legal terms and scope of the Supreme Court ruling and the wider motivations and beliefs of people who do not agree with all aspects of current progressive thought on the subject. I was responding to a post saying “they” want to banish all trans people, and I’m pretty sure that comment cannot be said to apply to the Supreme Court judgement itself. Responding to it while restricting myself only to the terms and scope of the judgement would be difficult!
Why are "they" worried about self ID if it isn't some kind of moral panic about the potential abuse of cis women by transwomen? If it isn't about abuse, what is it about?
Why would it be particularly coincidental? It largely tracks with coverage in the wider media. I've seen more detailed analysis previously covering the entire media, and can dig it up again, but as a summary:
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/09/transphobia-uk-press-media-negative-coverage/
It's not an assumption when we watched it happen in real time. The coincidence of timing can be linked to the Obergefell decision in the US that pushed US conservative groups away from the legislatively lost cause of equal marriage and on to trans people as a less protected target. This accords with these groups pumping money into the likes of LGB Alliance and other astroturf (or rather TERF) groups.
They make tiny groups and minorities look dangerous because readers are always hearing at great length about one of them who did 'awful thing X' when in fact they are usually just as likely or much less likely to do that than other parts of the population. It's the same with things like benefit fraud - the numbers are tiny but if the press constantly harp on about it they make it sound like a big and common and disproportionate problem.
This is how moral panics work - the key to them is that they are disproportionate. They manufacture danger where none exists or blow up tiny proportional risks ( every group has some bad people in it) to disproportionate ones that demonise whatever group they'd like to demonise today.
I forgot to add that in contrast in 2017 ‘self id’ was uncontroversial enough for Theresa May (no social liberal) to propose a version of it.
Maybe that’s what happened?
When the Scottish government- then the Scottish executive under Labour- moved to repeal section 2A, Scottish tabloids, other media, and hate groups blew up a huge moral panic against LGBT+ people, actual attacks on LGBT+ people ramped up, the newspapers splashed any gay sex offender they could find on their front pages and letters pages allowed letters which came out with the worst demonisations and characterisations of gay people. It temporarily succeeded in driving up prejudice and disapproval of the measure - that's what moral panics do.
The fault wasn't gay people not wanting to be discriminated against and have their families treated as non existent or second class, nor was it the fault of the government who listened or did something.
It was the newspapers and hate mongers - some of whom were rich people who spent a lot of money to try to harm a tiny harmless minority with false claims that they were a danger to children.
It was wrong then and wrong now when the target is trans people. Stop blaming attempts to fight persecution for causing persecution. It's a deliberate and wicked decision on the persecutors' part that they're going to double and treble down and run a campaign in the media and in the courts. And it's a disgrace when the media enable it and further it.
It wouldn't fit the timeline, public perception is relatively static until some time later - after several years of media coverage which is almost entirely negative.
That’s only if the case if you believe the deliberate ‘misunderstanding’ of the purpose of self ID that gender critical groups espoused. The sole purpose of Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) is to enable transgender people to amend the sex listed on their Birth Certificate. That and nothing else. It has no other purpose. It has nothing to do, for instance, with what facilities we use or whether we use pronouns in our email signatures.
Amending our Birth Certificates enables us to get married in our ‘affirmed gender’ (the legal term for it), retire at the appropriate age (it enables a change of sex marker on HMRC -the UK tax office - records) and, more importantly , it gives us dignity when we die; if we’ve got a GRC and an amended Birth Certificate, we can be buried as ourselves. I know of several instances where a trans woman has died and estranged family members have swooped in, claimed the body as their nearest and dearest, excluded the deceased’s partner, and had a funeral conducted with no mention of the deceased’s female name or that she had been a woman for the great majority of her adult life. That part of their life were completely ignored; they were misgendered and their birth names used throughout. In one case that I know of, not everyone at the funeral even knew until then that their friend had had a ‘previous’ life. Prior to GRCs and amended Birth Certificates and even where there was goodwill, people had to be buried or cremated under their birth gender, with their lived experience completely ignored. Even now, only 1% of transgender people have a GRC, so if/when they pass away, that still happens.
Oh — and how do you get one of these magic GRCs? You apply for it. Someone I know recently applied for hers, and she had to supply 45 pages of supporting evidence to say that she is who she says she is, that her gender change is permanent and that she intends to live in her affirmed role for the rest of her life. The supporting documentation has to include a combination of medical reports, details of what hormones you have had prescribed, what surgery you’ve had (if any at that point), your change of name deed, a legal affidavit, your original Birth Certificate, utility bills dating back at least two years, an employer’s report or payslips and various other documents. A panel of experts then examines all this evidence and decides within the following 22 weeks whether you can have the Magic Piece of Paper.
So where does the self-ID bit come in?
Purely and simply, the waiting list for a first appointment to see a gender specialist is currently years long rather than months. Many people are already living in their new role by the time they get there, so the plan was to was to remove the necessity for the medical report and instead to enable you to swear a legal affidavit that you have moved to your affirmed gender role as of whatever date and that you intend to live in the said affirmed gender for the rest of your life. That was all. That was the proposed self-ID. A document sworn in front of a duly authorised person instead of a letter from a doctor. Oh, and of course it hasn’t even been adopted. Furthermore, you’d still need all the other supporting documentation.
I know this is a long explanation, but there's been so much rubbish in the press that I think it's worth clarifying. I do not believe that the general public are aware of this.
*Fireworks sold in the UK have the instruction ‘Light the blue touchpaper and retire.’
Thank you!!
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
Merely being naked in a place where one is both allowed and expected to be naked is not any kind of harassment.
Modesty norms are complicated. Some people don't care at all if they are seen naked, some people try as hard as they can to keep their nakedness concealed, and there's a range of middle ground. Mrs C used to work with a woman who would cycle quite some distance to work, strip off in the ladies' toilet, and go to work at the sinks with a washcloth before changing into the work attire she had brought with her. This woman's point of view was "we're all women, you know what bits I've got, it doesn't matter if you see them." Most of her colleagues would not have chosen to do the same.
Most people are happy to wear (or not wear) things on the beach that they wouldn't dream of wearing on the high street, even though both beaches and high streets contain the same set of other people.
The word "gender" is used 69 times in the Equality Act 2010 (by my count). The majority of uses refer to "gender reassignment" (42 times). The remaining uses relate to sport ("gender-affected activity"), marriage and/or civil partnership (referring to "acquired gender" and the Gender Recognition Act 2004), gender pay gap information, benefits relating to marital status when a gender recognition certificate has been issued to one of the couple and the GRA 2004 a couple more times.
It seems to me unlikely that the EA 2010 was ever intended to address a person's gender identity or gender expression, or the broader issue of gender when used in that sense. Which in turn means those characteristics are not recognised as protected characteristics, and people are not given protection against discrimination or harassment on the basis of the characteristics under the Act.
Which is how the public leisure centres of West Northants mostly work, thankfully. As an aside, I wonder if that’s because the council’s estate of leisure centres is relatively new on the whole.
Even 30 years ago the new pool in my home town had cubicles, though it did have communal changing for school groups. I think a leisure centre with only communal changing would have to be pretty ancient by now.
Indeed, and that is not the concept I was responding to.
I think they call the "modern" trend "changing village" or something like that. A whole set of unisex cubicles that open out on to a common corridor.
What was more common 30 years ago were single-sex changing rooms that contained a mix of open changing space and cubicles.
My own local pool in the US has traditional-style open changing rooms for men and women, plus a handful of "family" changing rooms. The men's room has open changing plus two cubicles in the corner, open showers, and the normal toilet arrangement. I assume the women's is similar. The family rooms have a shower head, a toilet, and a couple of benches.
What struck me today is that what had appeared to be gradual progress in the UK towards some kind of formal recognition of self-determination of gender, has gone into reverse.
Furthermore, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the statutory body that enforces the Equality Act 2010. Overnight, its interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment has increased the amount of discrimination that even people *with* the protected characteristic of gender reassignment expect to experience.
I think that the idea of separate facilities for different groups of people (for whatever purpose) inevitably includes within it some sort of policing of which people belong to which groups. I don't think the question of whether we're talking about changing rooms, sports teams, or reserved seats on committees makes much difference to that.
The mere fact of saying "this thing is for these kinds of people" implies that there is a consensus about who "these kinds of people" are, and in the case of trans people, we don't have such a consensus. At one end of the spectrum is a Trumpian bigotry exemplified by people like Nancy Mace, at the other end is complete affirmation of trans people, but there's a lot of middle ground - for example, people who are happy for trans women to pee in women's bathrooms, but don't think they should run in women's running races.
Reducing the number of places in which we discriminate between different groups of people (for example, by having single-user unisex facilities rather than shared single-sex facilities) would certainly reduce the number of opportunities for this "policing".
I think a leisure centre with only communal changing would have to be pretty ancient by now.
The one I used last week, and intend to use this week, is about 25 years old. It has three changing rooms - male, female and family. No idea what the configuration is of the "family" changing room. The changing rooms are for those using either the swimming pool, or the gym, or one of the sports halls, or the climbing wall. Not that I know anything about team sports, but my guess is that if they have something like a netball tournament on, they could have six teams changing at the same time? Plus those heading for the pool or gym? So it's those points of peak usage which mean that it's an open changing room rather than cubicles?
The problem is the weaponisation of this, which turns theoretical problems into Supreme court cases and the widespread conflation of logically unsustainable positions.
It's conceivable that women-only shortlists could be flooded by transwomen, but that's not happening. I'm not sure what one should do about that possibility, but I'm very sure that having the Supreme Court issue a wide-ranging judgment that appears to be written by someone who hasn't thought very hard about the impacts of it is not the answer.
I can also see that there is a worry about dangerous abusers accessing single-sex facilities in order to find victims. But preventing transwomen from accessing these facilities seems at best a failure to address the problem and at worst extremely cruel.
I don't think the "debate" is about bodies. It's about the structures of society that allow bullying of minorities. Structures that once enabled the removal of people based on skin colour now needs a new scapegoat. It wasn't about bodies then and isn't now.
What does appear to be happening is that organisations that have gender balancing policies (quotas or women-only lists) and also recognise all women in those policies face expensive law suits from other organisations claiming those policies discriminate against women. At least two political parties in Scotland have been forced by the threat of legal action to change their practices in selecting candidates for the 2026 election.
pease
I’m asking you this question noting your insight and also any Shipmates with a legal background. I’d be interested in your take.
Is the EHRC interim guidance is in conflict with the Human Rights Act? The Good Law project clearly believes it is and since the European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty the UK is signed up to, it remains in force despite our withdrawal from the European Union. Under that convention, all public authorities have a duty to act in accordance with its principles.
It seems very strange to me that a public authority entitled the Equality and Human Rights Commission should issue guidelines which go against the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. They must have lawyers (or access to lawyers) available to vet those interim guidelines. Am I missing something? On the face of it the guidelines conflict with Article 8 (Privacy), Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), Article 11 (Freedom of Association) and Article 14 (Discrimination).
Has the UK, while remaining a signatory to the European Convention, also legislated in some way to deny its effect?
European Convention on Human Rights
This.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/13/equality-human-rights-commission-chair-kishwer-falkner-staff-complaints-new-term
Falkner was appointed by Truss.
Labour should not have extended her contract. But what happens with her replacement will be the real test.
AFZ
This is a bit chicken-and-egg in that the noise made by TERFs have meant that transwomen feel unsafe, and therefore there may have been more transwomen on these shortlists if there hadn't been the noise.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that efforts to encourage the participation of women rarely have much impact on inclusion of minorities. Usually there has to be a specific focus on minority inclusion for there to be anything other than white wealthy middle class people in these positions, and it isn't unusual for those in privileged positions (due to background and wealth) to see efforts to include others as a threat.
Often the language used is overtly sexist or racist, these people don't care. "Why should I care about these people when including them will reduce the number jobs for me" they often say.
In my experience efforts to include more people that don't fit the traditional modalities tend to also lead to more inclusion of women.
From that link
...which has now been achieved by the court ruling that it said that all along. Now I am confused.
The Good Law project has raised about a quarter of a million pounds so far (in a pretty short period of time). Standing should be interesting as will the timing of any case.
On the more general point, a good human rights case (and this looks like a good one to me) does cast a shadow over the legal competence of the EHRC. Remembering that E stands for equality, HR for Human Rights. I wonder whether lawyers were even consulted over the interim guidelines. As Carla Denyer of the Green Party observed, it is obvious that there was no prior consultation with any trans representatives. That’s bad enough.
There just aren't that many trans women. Out of roughly 17,000 local councillors in the UK, less than a dozen are trans. If public life was less hostile to trans people, perhaps that number would be a little larger, but we're still talking about a rather small number of people.
To my knowledge, one elected MP has said they are trans, ever (that was Conservative MP Jamie Wallis, who served one term as an MP from 2019 to 2024).
The idea that there's an army of trans women poised to exclude cis women from politics is obvious nonsense.
And even in the fantasy land where it is a problem, the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" standard would apply and you could discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment to promote a more balanced representation. The idea that trans women would ever be so overrepresented that "all cis woman" short lists for candidates were needed is a piece of obvious nonsense.
First, The Gender Recognition Act 2004: Which I'm sure the UK Government always appreciates having to do. Also note the timelines in the section on updates.
Wikipedia hasn't always been good when it comes to minorities, discrimination and marginalisation, but maybe they've been addressing this deficit. In "See also", the above article links to an article on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom: Which includes a fairly wide-ranging section on public attitudes, which starts: And includes Media coverage: And the Equality and Human Rights Commission:
Given recent history in the UK, a cynic might conclude that exploiting populist attitudes by provoking a fight with a European institution continues to be a politically expedient strategy.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I hinted at this a couple of pages back but I really come close to despair if we’re reliant on that outfit. Very good at raising money certainly.
Apparently Victoria McCloud is limbering up to kick their transphobic arses:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo
I know people in my own field who have good credentials but crank views that you need to have expertise to identify- very famous professors who get a lot of media attention but who are (correctly) very poorly regarded by colleagues on a lot of their emissions. So I know seemingly well credentialed people with dodgy opinions can be a thing.
Obviously don't link anything libellous but if you know some good critique that isn't from some obvious anti-trans outfit I'd be interested to see it- especially if it's trans people themselves saying they're actually useless.
That’s good. I’m also a fan of Robin Moira White, who I am aware of through railway preservation more than legal stuff, but that was the way in to her commentary for me.
Same reason as choirs, I would suggest (being self-diagnosed as being in a similar position to you re. neurodivergence) but we digress.
Thanks anyway. That gives me a useful data point.
My view is that it was a combination of QC brain (many lawyers have an over-exaggerated sense of their own reasoning abilities simply because they spend a large amount of their professional life with captive audiences, something visible when Maugham went on left-leaning twitch streams), and an assumption common to the middle-classes that if a thing appears logical it should and will be available as an offered policy choice.