United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
That's exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?
This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)
Yes, I did read the article. I notice you've completely failed to address 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.
I know it wasn't the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance, but she is the one who runs the EHRC and what they do/say. She sets the culture. She's the boss.
This commissioner is talking in this way ("accept it and get on with it, trans people!") because it's the message that comes from the top.
Like, it's not a sheer coincidence that this spokesperson's professional view aligns with her boss's. One caused the other.
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'm glad to hear that.
I know what she said, and it doesn't undermine my point.
She is acting as if nothing has changed, when something has changed: the actions of the EHRC.
The law hasn't changed, but the EHRC is dubiously using the SC's verdict to push for anti-trans measures in gov departments.
Why are you still not addressing that?
Um, ok? I'm glad you're glad.
Now are you going to address what I said or not?
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?
Because – as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.
From one side of their mouth they're saying nothing has changed, from the other they are using this as vindication for new anti-trans moves.
Now that I've again answered you, for the final time, are you going to address what I've been saying?
It feels like you're just arguing in bad faith for the sake of arguing, and I can't be bothered with that.
I think I see what you've been trying to communicate now.
Well the problem is you didn't say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:
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.
In that case I'm sorry you failed to make the link.
LOL the failure isn't mine