I'd really like to know whether EHRC were merely careless with their position, or if there was more of an agenda somewhere. It's hard to tell from where I sit.
They were very quick to make a statement that seemed unnecessarily anti-trans. I already suspected that they had an agenda; now that their lawyers are choosing not to defend it, I am sure that someone important in the EHRC had an agenda.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2025-06-17 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-06-17 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-06-19 05:35 pm (UTC)Lord Sumption, former Master of the Rolls, was at least a figure-head for an anti-woke backlash against the Natiional Trust https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/02/national-trust-defends-right-to-campaign-on-nature-amid-pressure-from-lobby-group and https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/past-recast-inside-row-engulfing-national-trust Yet he says https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html that whilst the Supreme Court ruling allows one to be anti-trans, it does not require one to be.