The Equality and Human Rights Commission is falling apart. Its Chair, Kishwer Falkner, in a plea of authoritarian desperation, said “It is unacceptable to question the integrity of the regulator”, but the EHRC’s lack of integrity is on full display.
Speaking at a panel discussion on the FWS v The Scottish Ministers ruling at the London School of Economics, EHRC commissioner Akua Reindorf embodied legal and moral ineptitude that is incompatible with working for a human rights body, in her ludicrous assertion that trans people need to accept the reduction of their rights as they “have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.”
Reindorf is seemingly attempting to dismantle and rewrite history to justify the oppression of a minority, on the assumption that people are naive enough to believe her wishful thinking as a factual representation of not only the law, but the course of action which led to this dystopian nightmare. ‘Authoritarian in nature’ must be a CV requirement.
A spokesperson for the EHRC said, “Reindorf spoke at this event in a personal capacity,” as if that is in any way excusable for the commissioner of a national human rights institution to take such an indefensible position. The EHRC have destroyed the walls of ‘reasonable concerns’ and plausible deniability, exposing the grotesque extent of ideological corruption and oppressive motivations.
You never had rights, stop complaining.
Reindorf said her claims “reflected the fact that before the ruling, the law had been commonly misunderstood because pressure groups argued that trans people should be treated as their identified sex, when this was only the case for trans people with a GRC.”
The pressure group, of course, being the EHRC, in their 2011 Code of Practice, they reflected trans inclusion “according to the gender role in which they present.”
13.57 – If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Emphasise added
The Authentic Equity Alliance, led by LGBA founder and former trustee Anne Sinnott, alongside Naomi Cunningham, challenged this chapter of the Code in 2021.
They claimed that the guidance breached the Equality Act due to “fundamental misstatements in law” and that trans people can be lawfully excluded, unless they have a GRC.
The EHRC successfully defended this interpretation of the EA, which Reindorf is claiming to have “grotesquely misled” trans people, stating that “AEA’s case was based on a flawed understanding of the EA 2010” with Mr Justice Henshaw ruling the case “unarguable.”
A year later, the EHRC released non-statutory guidance for Separate and Single-Sex Service Providers, further reinforcing this legal position, which is by no means a malicious falsehood.
Either Reindorf willingly disregarded her principles and joined a commission that contradicts her ‘truthful’ understanding of law, or she joined them to change their understanding.
With help, of course.
In her forced position of intellectual superiority, Reindorf said the Supreme Court ruling was the “catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place.” Her memory appears to be substantially short-term, as the catalyst for the EHRC’s very recent legal ‘revelation’ was the anti-trans lobby group SexMatters, of which Reindorf has represented in three legal cases, two involving the defence of “gender-critical beliefs.”
TACC revealed that SexMatters had extended correspondence and a private meeting with the EHRC before the ruling, guiding them on how they can facilitate the “statutory recognition of biological sex” through their rewritten interpretation of the Equality Act 2010.
Forstater made her preference clear in the 2010 Draft Code of Practice, which had fewer protections for trans individuals.
1) The original draft Code of Practice for Service Providers and Associations which went out for consultation in 2010 (attached). We think this was a much better approach than that which ended up being published. It is closely aligned to the legislation. On the single sex services exceptions in Schedule 3 it said
Email from Maya Forstater to Kishwer Falkner on 09 September 2024 20:23:14
“The prohibition on gender reassignment discrimination does not apply in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services, provided that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
And
“The service provider will be expected to consider the needs and wishes of the transsexual person as well as those of the women or men using separate or single-sex services.”
In the meeting that took place last September, shortly before a public consultation on the Code of Practice was due to start, SexMatters updated the EHRC on their lobbying work and intended engagement in the consultation, and asserted the need “for convening groups/individuals with differing views on gender issues.” The Commission said the consultation “will set out EHRC’s interpretation of what the law currently is”, and this version of the Code maintained trans inclusion based on the role in which they present. SexMatters strongly condemned this, and after the consultation closed in January, the Code was rewritten to encourage the exclusion of trans individuals without a GRC.
SexMatters has been engaged in a relentless lobbying campaign, and now their legally and morally inept interpretation of the law is embedded in the leadership of the EHRC, who are abusing their positions to facilitate the destruction of trans rights under influence from a single-issue anti-trans hate group.
Stop lying to yourself
When questioned on the worries that trans rights could be reduced following the ruling, Naomi Cunningham, who also spoke at the event, said trans people “will have to give way. It can’t be helped” and it is no surprise that Reindorf “just can’t put it in a more diplomatic way than that.” They are birds of the same bigoted feather.
It is truly deplorable for the commissioner of a human rights body to maintain the position that a minority needs to sit by and watch their rights get stripped away; the quiet part is being shouted down a megaphone. Her role at the EHRC is untenable, and the Commission is unfit for purpose.
“The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs were being grievously misled about their legal rights, the correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.”
– Akua Reindorf.
Trans people didn’t lose rights, for they were all merely a fabrication of their own will.
They have always been separate, they were never equal, and they need to accept it.
For lack of better wording, fuck right off.
Not only is Reindorf denying a minority’s rights and disregarding the legal history that shaped them, she is telling that minority it is their fault for being in this “unfortunate position.”
How foolish of us to have advocated against the oppression of our existence and defend rights long fought for, how could we possibly have been so naive as to expect basic recognition and respect, how dare we expect to be equals…
The situation the trans community faces is by no definition the consequence of our misunderstood legal standing and misplaced actions; to say this is the consequence of our own actions is an insult that will never be forgotten.
Reindorf was right to say this is a product of lobby groups and misinformation, legacy media has long pandered to the assertions of the anti-trans movement with a disregard for journalistic integrity.
Made all the apparent in the Guardian’s reporting on this, their first headline branded as “defamatory” by Reindorf on X, it read “EHRC Commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights after years of ‘lies.’” She “expected” the headline to be “urgently corrected”, which it was. The headline was promptly amended in ignorant reinforcement of Reindorf’ claims, “EHRC Commissioner calls for trans people to accept perceived reduced rights.”
Disappointing but not at all surprising.
The trans community has come to expect the press’ capitulation to the anti-trans movement, to the will and wishful thinking of its foot soldiers, taking their hateful declarations as evidenced fact and reporting them as such. The Guardian’s complacency and active involvement in the portrayal of trans existence as lesser to any other has left a permanent stain on their reputation, though post-ruling they seemed to be on the fence of a tonal shift in reporting, which they’ve taken far too literally.
It appears the Guardian realised implying that trans rights have always been a legal fiction is worse than offending a corrupt commissioner, and changed the headline again.
“EHRC Commissioner calls for ‘period of correction’ on trans rights after legal ruling”
Cover your backs? I’m not so sure.
For over a decade, the trans community has suffered a relentless campaign to destroy not only our legal protections, but society’s understanding of trans existence, the consent manufacturing machine portraying it as an abstract concept that is an inherent threat to the bounds of ‘functioning society.’
The constant representation of non-existent conflation between women’s and trans rights, the institutional rejection of our voices in place of well-funded hate groups that seek the eradication of trans people from public life and a “total end to the trans child.”
As much as Reindorf likes to see herself as the final boss of epistemicide, we will not allow the narrative to be changed, we will not sit by whilst people try to rewrite our history and take away our rights.
We will never “give way” to our place in society.