rah @ rah @feddit.uk

Posts

7

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

LOL the failure isn't mine

I think I see what you've been trying to communicate now.

as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.

Well the problem is you didn't say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:

my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC's verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC's verdict not actually changing anything.

Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody "saying one thing and doing another". The critical part is that with "the SC's verdict not actually changing anything" you're presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.

My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.

I know what she said

I'm confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?

This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn't pass

"to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests."

From what I can tell, this isn't about creating a registry of trans people, this is about collecting "sex at birth" alongside other data for any "identity verification requests" which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.

• The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
• The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
• Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).

None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.

I don't understand how you went from this stuff you've linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?

Will the government spend money wisely on this project or syphon off millions to corrupt contractors?

I'm confused. Isn't syphoning off money the whole purpose of a government? Why would they spend money wisely?

I notice you've completely failed to address my main point

I notice you've completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)

I know it wasn't the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance

I'm glad to hear that.

And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people

I'm curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

That's exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?

It's pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC's conclusion

This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)

nonpeople

O_o

it confuses me why so few people see it that way

Willful ignorance fuelled by religious indoctrination that getting out of your head is immoral.

Indeed, alcohol can be a problematic drug and is much more dangerous than most illicit drugs but do you assume that everyone who has a drink is doing so because they have a drinking problem?

Yeah but then how would the rich and powerful feel good about themselves?

"Increase social service programs so that we address the reason why they're homeless and doing drugs in the first place."

Doing drugs doesn't imply a problem. UNODC estimates that only 10-15% of drug use is problematic. It's not reasonable to assume that drug use is an escape from problems, any more than drinking alcohol.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Also, see: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RM_DAUzrlXY

That violence won't cease in the absence of a government. On the contrary, it'll get much worse. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest#During_the_zone

Yes but given the chance, the people won't form an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We know this because they have the chance to form an anarcho-syndicalist commune right now and they haven't.

What would be the point of overthrowing the government? It's not like, given a second chance, the people would create something better than a government.

4K/UHD discs need to phone home in order to get decryption keys on a per disc basis

Is that true for hardware players? I've only seen people talking about software players like Power DVD having to get keys from the Internet.