Everybody across all
If only people would tell the truth in these discussions, it would save so much time and effort. The endless evasions and concealments just prolong the misery.
THE new head of the UK’s human rights watchdog has said she will “endeavour” to protect trans people amid the ongoing row over access to single-sex spaces.
What does that mean? Protect them how? Nobody is trying to beat trans people up, so what kind of protection do they need? Spell it out!
Mary-Ann Stephenson said she is keen to “uphold the rights of everybody across all protected characteristics”, having taken up her role as Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) chair at the beginning of December despite a campaign to block the appointment.
Which rights?
Spell it out.
It’s not possible, for instance, to protect women’s rights to women-only spaces and women’s prizes and women’s awards and protect men’s “rights” to be treated as women in all circumstances without exception. If that’s the contradiction you’re trying to avoid, you have to spell it out so that everyone can point out you can’t do both. You can’t give men everything that belongs to women without violating the rights of women.
Some trans rights activists had argued that her track record suggested a “history of alignment with organisations and narratives that have contributed to the marginalisation of trans people in the UK”.
Who said that bit in the quotation marks? The Telegraph doesn’t say, so I asked Google, which gave me this article. So who said it? If it’s the Telegraph who said it, right here in this article, why is it in quotation marks? Surely it’s a basic duty of journalism to make that kind of thing clear.
Stephenson added that she believes in the importance of protecting the rights of all, including trans people, in the debate around single-sex spaces.
Well if by “including trans people” you mean protecting their non-existent “rights” to demolish women’s rights, then you can’t possibly protect the rights of all. Obliterating the rights of half the population is not the path to that goal.
She said: “I would say, you know, judge me on what I do. I am really keen, I think it’s really important for the chair of the EHRC to uphold the rights of everybody across all protected characteristics.
“I think it’s really important when we’re looking at this issue around single-sex spaces, to make sure that you also protect the rights of trans people. And yes, I will endeavour to do that.”
You can’t. You can’t. You can’t. Swallow the bitter pill. It is not possible. If you think men who idennify as trans have a right to be in single-sex spaces for women, and you act accordingly, then you will be doing the opposite of protecting the rights of women.
Fucking hell this gets exhausting. Years and years spent telling grown-ass adults they can’t square the circle, and nobody budges. “And yes, I will endeavour to square the circle forever and ever and ever.”
The Government has said it will not be rushed in publishing an updated code of practice which will be used by businesses and other organisations to inform their provision of single and separate-sex services such as toilets and changing rooms.
No doubt because the Government knows you can’t square the circle and doesn’t want to be yelled at. We’re stuck at the red light forever.
Spelling out what is meant by “rights” is necessary, but for the wishy-washy who don’t want to be ostracized it’s an incompatible task with their popularity.
Everyone should have their right to their safey without compromise, of course, but if we mean that some people’s rights need to be compromised in order to provide that guarantee then we do have a problem. Until we can get through the heads of the gender identitarians that sex is the determinant of male or female, the “rights” will never be spelled out.
It occurred to me that trans-identifying women are in more danger in a men’s locker or restroom than trans-identifying men are. The issue is not identity, the issue is sex.
To the best of my awareness, Stephenson does not believe that any men should have access to women’s single-sex spaces. I don’t know a lot about her, but I am aware that she has been extensively criticized by TRAs for her ties to and seeming involvement in the gender-critical movement. This helps to explain why she would provide such comments, which I do not think are uncompatible with gender-critical views.
I also recall that Jane Clare Jones was very favorable to her appointment. It’s not clear, but it seems she personally knows Stephenson and deems her to agree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equality act.
But, as Stephenson says, let’s wait and see what she does.
Well no, because in the meantime clarity of language is still crucial. It’s not clear what she means by “uphold the rights of everybody across all protected characteristics” and it does matter. Trans dogma is bolstered by this endless vague chatter about the rights of everybody, when some purported rights are in fact destructive of women’s basic rights.
Yes, I can see that Stephenson’s unwillingness to clearly state her position might be concerning in itself.