It's not one person (Braverman). The EHRC itself have made it clear what the law has always said. If it didn't say that then Stonewall itself wouldn't be campaigning to remove all the exemptions about single sex spaces. I've given you the links and screenshots umpteen times but you insist that no such exemptions exist. This is just an attempt to confuse people about what the law says. You can regard the EA exemptions as bigoted if you like, many don't and are very glad it exists.
As usual though we are going over old stuff ad nauseum.
It's your persistence to adhere to nonsense rather than facts that marks you out.
I've already said, Badenoch, Truss, Johnson, Sunak and others are of a similar mindset, however their opinions, however much you value them were not manifesto pledges, not in the Queen's Speech, and although I haven't read it, I don't believe they were in the recent King's Speech.
We know that this government have an unhealthy disregard for democracy, and a disrespect of citizens at large. We also know that this government have successfully interfered or attempted to interfere with independent bodies to suit their own ends, the BBC, Channel 4, the commission, and even the judiciary, while all the time by-passing parliament where they can.
Johnson appointed a chum to head up the BBC. Truss appointed someone with known anti-trans views to head up the commission. A previous head of the commission has spoken out against this - both the means of appointment, and her views.
This arrangement no doubt suits your purposes, but it is at least undemocratic, and worst corrupt. You might think this if 'fine', but I and others do not.
I am not a member of Stonewall, so I'm unsure why you to try to taunt me with this. If women are free to organise to campaign for one side of the argument, then Stonewall must surely be free to campaign on the other. My own view is that if the government make promises in law for trans health care then they must stick to it. But as we know, trans people are stuck on waiting lists for first appointment with a five year queue. Also worth remembering that barrister Alison Bailey lost her complaint against Stonewall in court.
My opinion is similar to that of the Select Committee; that if the government will not keep to the promises it made and set out in law, then it needs to do something else to instead. On that basis I will say that we need to introduce self-ID but as I've said before I would want to see certain safeguards. To this end I think the Scots had pretty much the right idea - a reduction from two year medicalised process to a six month process with risk assessment leading the safeguarding concerns.
The EHRC has made it clear what the chair thinks - many of the staff left alleging transphobia from a person known to hold anti-trans views.
That body hold an advisory role. They can not change the law, or reinterpret it into something other than parliament intended.
There are correct democratic process for this that the government refuses to follow. I will guess that this is because they know that the legal democratic routes will lead to failure.
People hold the right to look to the domestic courts for effective remedy. If they fail under the domestic system all the way up to the UK Supreme Court, they are at liberty to seek effective remedy at the European Court of Human Rights, whose role is to ensure that human rights are not be abused at state level. There is evidence that human rights are being abused at state level. The ECtHR, the Council of Europe, and the women's groups at the United Nations have been warning.
The democratic solution is not found by groups of women cheering on Glinner who shouted at the United Nations women's group, 'to go fark themselves'.
