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.
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.
hahahahahaha
no
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 always.
That’s the narrative, but trans rights have been taken away. Ask anyone who is being forced to out themselves by going to their “sex assigned at birth” bathroom, or being forced to use the accessible toilets.
That’s in no small part due to the EHRC’s “interim guidance” that in no way follows the law.
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.
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.
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”…
