What did the EHRC report actually say?

Billy Bragg's lazy, reckless misogyny is exposed as soon as you read the report he pretends to be upset about

The EHRC is finally doing its job by making it more difficult for men to rape women and for gender nonconforming children to be ‘fixed’ through drugs and surgery. Naturally, Billy Bragg is against it.

Billy Bragg @billybragg

Our trans and non-binary friends need some solidarity right now. If you agree that @EHRC has ceased to be a human rights institution that represents everyone equally you can add your name to the open letter here.

stonewall.org.ukAdd your name: the EHRC is not fit for purpose

Let’s have a proper look at what this reckless, misogynist moron is objecting to, shall we? The following is taken from a thread by Nikki Da Costa.

“With Stonewall demanding the Equality and Human Rights Commission lose its 'A status' and voice in the UN, I thought I better re-read the two docs seen as 'anti-trans'. Had I missed what caused this extraordinary outburst? MPs and Peers take note you'll be next in their sights

This is the response to the Conversion Therapy consultation. Emphasising need for clear definitions, more detailed and evidence-based proposals, proper scrutiny and pre-legislative scrutiny, and a human rights memo to accompany legislation

The EHCR also expressed caution about interpreting the data BUT expressed support for the "principle that harmful conversion therapy practices should be ended"

Drew attention to the rights that needed to be balanced (Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR, and protecting individuals from serious harm) and specific areas where more work was needed to define terms...

Looked at what other work might be needed to implement a ban, particularly ensuring that police, prosecutors and statutory services who would enforce the ban had appropriate training.

Flagged concerns about unintended consequences "particularly in relation to those under 18, unless conversion therapy is carefully defined in legislation"

Agreed "that the proposed penalties are proportionate to the seriousness of the potential harm caused by conversion therapies, and that certain factors should increase the seriousness of the offence". And worried that healthcare professionals might stop providing support to those with gender dysphoria, and offered some thoughts on avoiding this, and called for "prompt and decisive action to reduce the already unacceptably long waiting times for gender dysphoria services"

For all of THIS Stonewall declare them beyond the pale? Seek to destroy the reputation of the independent rights watchdog? For challenging the UK Government and asking for better definitions in law they were declared to be lacking independence of the UK Government?

But maybe the issue is the other document responding to Scotland's proposals that someone can change their legal sex after 'living in the acquired gender' for 3 months.

By way of context, the Scottish Govt's analysis of consultation responses, published Sept 2021, found strong views both for and against. It is particularly worthwhile reading the summary of responses relating to the Impact Assessments.

And particularly in relation to the Equality Impact Assessment which is the context for the Equality and Human Rights Commission's most recent letter.

The section on sex - a protected characterised under the Equality Act 2010 - is lengthy and worth reading in full. This is where the debate tends to centre. The short letter from the Commission to the Cabinet Secretary refers to mutual concern that the "polarised debate...is causing much distress to people on all sides" and wanting to work to support a careful and respectful discussion of potential changes to the law

It then summarises those concerns (see screenshot) and says "As such, we consider that more detailed consideration is needed before any change is made to the provisions in the Act"

Then the letter sets out where it thinks urgent progress is needed - speedy delivery of the changes promised by the UK Government and tackling the "unacceptably long waiting times for gender identity services" both in Scotland and in Britain before concluding that it believes the current legal framework is correctly balanced. Now, I can see that those wanting legal change might say 'can you explain this further' or 'we'd like to challenge that' or 'this is why you are wrong' - seek to win the rational argument….

BUT instead they declare EHRC 'anti-trans', call on the UN to remove its 'A status' so it no longer has a voice on UN Committees and no longer raise issues of concern within the UK relating to 7 UN treaties (inc. civil + political rights, racism, torture, and rights of child).

Dissent, debate, scrutiny are forbidden in the world Stonewall would like to dictate.