Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights

• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  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 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 my comment?

  I’m glad to hear that.

  Ok?

  Now are you going to address what I said or not?

  source

  • rah@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • rah@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        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 what you had meant but never made explicit.

        source

        • -> View More Comments