Here's a left-field question: to what extent do people have a right to know each other's genders and preferences?
If you want me to refer to you in a gendered way, you need to tell me which set of words to use. Or people often guess based on name and/or presentation.
If I am attracted to you and interested in forming some kind of intimate personal relationship with you, then discovering those kinds of things about each other sounds like part of the "are we compatible" coupley negotiation.
One could certainly ask questions about, for example, if you were a feminine-presenting trans woman, is there a point where you have an obligation to inform a partner or potential partner that you are trans, but one must acknowledge in this context that a significant number of trans women have been beaten up and killed by some man who was upset to discover that they were trans.
I don't think any of those fall under other people having a right to know, but under the category of being free to choose what you tell others (with consequences such as potentially being accidentally misgendered if you make the decision to not make your preferences for pronouns known). I can't think of any time when anyone has the moral right to know something the person concerned prefers not to let others know.
I don't think any of those fall under other people having a right to know, but under the category of being free to choose what you tell others (with consequences such as potentially being accidentally misgendered if you make the decision to not make your preferences for pronouns known).
Fair enough. I decided at some point that I was happy to answer to either “he” or “they”, which simplifies things.
The one time “he/him” has appeared next to my name on a form (someone else filled out the form and made an assumption), two different people independently accidentally called me “Ms. Marsupial”. I am sure there is a lesson there somewhere…
@Leorning Cniht what exactly do you mean by "feminine-presenting" though? A butch lesbian trans woman isn't feminine presenting but is likely to still look like a woman. I don't mean this as a "gotcha", but to point out that people seem to use "feminine-presenting" to mean "looks like a cishet woman" specifically rather than "looks like a woman". In my experience, a butch lesbian trans woman isn't less likely to have a vagina than any other trans woman for eg.
Lots of cis people have things about their bodies that they might need to disclose to someone they're going to have sex with, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up before you're about to have sex - it means you might have to have sex in a different way, but I don't think anyone would expect eg a cis woman with vaginismus to have to bring it up on a date.
When it's come up in conversations with my trans friends, they have all said they choose to tell prospective partners before getting too intimate and in public because waiting is more dangerous for them in terms of either embarrassment or violence.
That said imagine you have a injury or disability that doesn't obviously show. For instance, you have a giant burn scar all over your stomach. It was from a while ago in a traumatic fire but you escaped and it doesn't hurt anymore (except in memories) but it's considered very ugly. You probably don't wear crop-tops regardless of your gender. Does this you have an obligation to "warn" people before sex? Might tactically want to, but I would say that no you don't morally have to. It's your body and you shouldn't have to tell people about your private traumatic history.
I imagine you see where I am going with that analogy.
I don't see why a burn scar might be a moral decision. I actually have a big scar on my thigh, it never occurred to me to tell someone. If they don't like it, they can sod off. Does this connect with gender, I guess in terms of appearance, but this tangles with the knotty issues of identity, appearance, psychology, etc.
I don't see why a burn scar might be a moral decision. I actually have a big scar on my thigh, it never occurred to me to tell someone. If they don't like it, they can sod off. Does this connect with gender, I guess in terms of appearance, but this tangles with the knotty issues of identity, appearance, psychology, etc.
A big enough scar could certainly be a turnoff to some people but yes people who object can sod off. I think that summarizes my opinions on both issues.
Speaking as someone with a massive abdominal scar, I'd probably tell them - because I wouldn't want to be half naked with someone who then goes "er yuck" - for my own sake rather than theirs.
Lots of cis people have things about their bodies that they might need to disclose to someone they're going to have sex with, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up before you're about to have sex - it means you might have to have sex in a different way, but I don't think anyone would expect eg a cis woman with vaginismus to have to bring it up on a date.
I think that, for example, if I knew I was infertile, I would have an obligation to disclose that to a woman I was dating fairly early in the proto-relationship, because I owe her the opportunity to back out before she gets too deeply involved. The same would apply, I think, if I knew that I had made the choice that I didn't want to ever have children.
If I was a gay man, my fertility would be less of an issue, and I suppose if I was just in the market for casual sex, it wouldn't matter at all.
I suppose the question here is whether you thing being trans is just "a thing about your body" of the same order as a scar or something more fundamental.
I mean the context suggested (to me at least) that the issue was about sex rather than long-term compatibility, in which case it seemed fairly logical to equate it to eg vaginismus. I would assume that the subject of transition would just come up pretty naturally in something that was going to be more long-term, but certainly I don't know any trans person that wouldn't make it obvious that they're trans on a dating app for eg.
I'm not sure that's something you (general you) can really make a pronouncement on wrt being a gay man and fertility being less important. I think a lot of this stuff is just about how individuals feel and can't really be guessed like that.
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
Sarah Owen (Chair): It is fair to say that the EHRC faces greater challenges, increasing workload with diminishing resources - only 7 out of the up to 15 commissioners positions are in place - against a backdrop of news reports and statements that have damaged the reputation and public trust in the organisation. In your final few months, what are you plans to improve the situation?
Baroness Falkner: I don't think I could agree with your characterisation of the EHRC, and I hope that as time goes on in the next two hours I will be able to disprove those sentiments with hard facts. But we don't agree with that characterisation; I think it is fair to say that being chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ... is one of the toughest jobs in British public life.
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
I can see, as a cis het man, that if you are someone for whom heterosexuality is a big part of your identity, discovering that the woman you're attracted to has or had a penis might stir up some big feelings. Whatever our rational mind might say we're conditioned to think penis = man, not least because 99 times out of a hundred that's the case, and sexual attraction is an area the rational mind doesn't get much of a look in. I suppose I would regard it as a matter of... courtesy? to inform a potential partner, preferably some time prior to things getting hot and heavy, if you're trans. I can also see that it would feel violating if you (however much we might not share the belief) had sex with a woman and later discovered she was trans and were left feeling that you'd had sex with a man and thus your "straight" identity was challenged. It seems pretty outrageous to legitimise that feeling by treating non-disclosure as a criminal act, which is what current government guidelines seem to do.
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
Sarah Owen (Chair): It is fair to say that the EHRC faces greater challenges, increasing workload with diminishing resources - only 7 out of the up to 15 commissioners positions are in place - against a backdrop of news reports and statements that have damaged the reputation and public trust in the organisation. In your final few months, what are you plans to improve the situation?
Baroness Falkner: I don't think I could agree with your characterisation of the EHRC, and I hope that as time goes on in the next two hours I will be able to disprove those sentiments with hard facts. But we don't agree with that characterisation; I think it is fair to say that being chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ... is one of the toughest jobs in British public life.
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
Good summary.
I wanted to provide the link without commentary in the first instance.
I have two strong feelings here;
1. Utter despair and distain that the EHRC is behaving this way.
2. Encouraged that the Select Committee (or rather some members) are calling this out.
Oh and on the subject of that survey. I maintain significant scepticism...
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
Sarah Owen (Chair): It is fair to say that the EHRC faces greater challenges, increasing workload with diminishing resources - only 7 out of the up to 15 commissioners positions are in place - against a backdrop of news reports and statements that have damaged the reputation and public trust in the organisation. In your final few months, what are you plans to improve the situation?
Baroness Falkner: I don't think I could agree with your characterisation of the EHRC, and I hope that as time goes on in the next two hours I will be able to disprove those sentiments with hard facts. But we don't agree with that characterisation; I think it is fair to say that being chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ... is one of the toughest jobs in British public life.
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
Good summary.
I wanted to provide the link without commentary in the first instance.
I have two strong feelings here;
1. Utter despair and distain that the EHRC is behaving this way.
2. Encouraged that the Select Committee (or rather some members) are calling this out.
Oh and on the subject of that survey. I maintain significant scepticism...
Our beloved youngest grandaughter has a lovely trans cis partner. My disdain for the Baroness's reply knows no limits. It's nonsense. Populist or what?
Sorry if I've used the wrong term. In G's birth certificate and passport the gender is given as 'F'. Following surgery and according to inclination, G identifies as hetero male. And a very nice creative person he is too!
Thus my interest in this thread and distress at the position many folk have been put in.
Oh and on the subject of that survey. I maintain significant scepticism...
I did some searching online and there is nothing I can find on EHRC public approval. Of course my search is not exhaustive but I am wondering if the Baroness made it up. More likely there is something with a very flawed methodology.
Please tell me some investigative reporter is digging into this.
Sorry if I've used the wrong term. In G's birth certificate and passport the gender is given as 'F'. Following surgery and according to inclination, G identifies as hetero male. And a very nice creative person he is too!
Thus my interest in this thread and distress at the position many folk have been put in.
Trans man is the terminology you're looking for. Cis is "not trans".
This from Ian Dunt is excellent. It's a long read but as I put it on Bluesky, this is what journalism looks like. Proper, detailed reporting and analysis. Once again, I return to the point that I don't think the problem is the SC ruling, it's the EHRC.
A couple of excerpts (emphasis mine):
There is a good reason for the EHRC to try and avoid meaningful consultation. It is because their public pronouncements have almost no connection with the Supreme Court judgement. They have taken a limited judicial ruling and expanded it to shocking, country-altering levels.
The Supreme Court ruled on one issue: the definition of the words 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act. They decided that man meant biological man and women meant biological woman. In other words, a trans man is a woman and a trans woman is a man.
But this is only the case for that one piece of legislation. In every other piece of legislation, a trans man is still a man and a trans woman is still a woman. This is because the Gender Recognition Act states that someone with a gender recognition certificate has changed their sex "for all purposes".
The rules on toilets at work are found in regulation 20 of the Workplace Regulations 1992. It states that "separate rooms containing conveniences" must be "provided for men and women". This is what led the EHRC to state that "in workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets" and that "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities".
The problem is that the Workplace Regulations 1992 is a completely different piece of legislation to the Equality Act. And therefore the words 'man' and 'woman' do not refer exclusively to biological sex. They come under powers in the Gender Recognition Act and include trans people in whatever their adopted gender is. This is a very significant problem for the EHRC position, because it itself recognises that the Supreme Court ruling refers only to the Equality Act.
This is one of the key objections raised in the Good Law Project's legal challenge. You should read the rest for yourself: it is tightly argued, literate, thorough and forensic. It has the kind of unmistakable legal swagger you see when an author is feeling very confident about their position.
This conclusion about the consequences of the Tories effectively destroyed the EHRC through Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch various appointments to the commission is also very apt:
This is what happens when you take a public body with crucial responsibilities and turn it into a culture war campaign organisation. You betray a minority group which needs protection. But you also leave British businesses exposed to ruinous legal challenges.
I can also see that it would feel violating if you (however much we might not share the belief) had sex with a woman and later discovered she was trans and were left feeling that you'd had sex with a man and thus your "straight" identity was challenged. It seems pretty outrageous to legitimise that feeling by treating non-disclosure as a criminal act, which is what current government guidelines seem to do.
I think we'd all agree that sexual consent is specific to specific acts and circumstances - for example, consenting to sex with a condom does not imply consent to the same sexual act without a condom (cf. Assange). This doesn't extend to anything someone says surrounding sex, otherwise a whole load of people would be in jail for rape because "I really really love you" or "I'm going to leave my husband / wife" wasn't exactly true.
Prosecutors notably refused to prosecute undercover police officers who had sex with environmental protesters as part of their undercover duties; many of the women involved report feeling raped and violated by this.
Would a trans man who said that he was a cis man, and obtained sexual consent from a partner who would be unwilling to have sex with a trans man be guilty of rape by deception? I think that's not entirely clear, but he might be. If the same man just refers to himself as a man, is that the same? I'd say not, because a trans man is a man, so that's not actually a lie.
I'd certainly say that obtaining sexual consent whilst not mentioning some material fact that you reasonably knew might affect someone's consent is morally reprehensible, and that would apply to adulterers just as much as it would to trans people, undercover cops, and various other sets of people.
...Our beloved youngest grandaughter has a lovely trans cis partner. My disdain for the Baroness's reply knows no limits. It's nonsense. Populist or what?
I really don't think it's populism.
As she said, one of the things that motivates her long public service - attempting to engage with legislation - is the belief that the law exists to make life better for people. To me, it seems pretty clear that she believes that what she's doing is the right thing to do - primarily in a legal sense, and quite possibly in other senses too, although her responses are mostly couched in legal terms (unsurprisingly).
As the hearing goes on, it become clearer that she sees this particular issue in terms of taking sides (even if she's trying not to). On one side are women and girls, and on the other side are trans women. (Although I think this is more a phantasmic conception of trans women in conjunction with physical people actively promoting, in an actualised way, the idea of trans women being women.)
... Encouraged that the Select Committee (or rather some members) are calling this out.
As you point out, some members of the committee are on her side. As part of a response to a direct question (15:11 in the timeline) about the bullying she and the EHRC have personally experienced, she said the following:
One of the things that one notices is that the vast majority of that part of our population, which is particularly the women and girls part, which is more that half our population ... the vast majority of those people who felt disadvantaged or felt the law was not supporting them did so in a dignified, respectful manner, frequently using the last resort of a tribunal or a court ...
Let’s be clear. This supreme court ruling only covers 8,464 people, the holders of GRCs. So in terms of changing things at all, those are the people affected. But the level of agitation that they can cause in terms of personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation, where our family members are affected, our intimate family members have to think about how they are going about their place of work and so on, has got to stop.
Shortly after which the chair intervened to "make sure that there wasn't an inadvertent and an unwitting tarnishing of all campaigners and activists of either side", to which Baroness Falkner responded by emphatically endorsing the right to protest.
I did some searching online and there is nothing I can find on EHRC public approval. Of course my search is not exhaustive but I am wondering if the Baroness made it up. More likely there is something with a very flawed methodology.
Lots of public-facing organisations conduct their own surveys of public opinion. I don't believe that they're required to publicise the results, as a rule.
I did some searching online and there is nothing I can find on EHRC public approval. Of course my search is not exhaustive but I am wondering if the Baroness made it up. More likely there is something with a very flawed methodology.
Lots of public-facing organisations conduct their own surveys of public opinion. I don't believe that they're required to publicise the results, as a rule.
It's the kind of thing that usually gets folded into annual reports.
It is odd data. I have little doubt that the majority of the public don't know what the EHRC even is. Hence I am very interested in the methodology. I hope someone is doing a FOI request here.
I may be completely wrong but this claim is odd and deserves scrutiny.
Lots of public-facing organisations conduct their own surveys of public opinion. I don't believe that they're required to publicise the results, as a rule.
It's the kind of thing that usually gets folded into annual reports.
It is odd data. I have little doubt that the majority of the public don't know what the EHRC even is. Hence I am very interested in the methodology. I hope someone is doing a FOI request here.
I may be completely wrong but this claim is odd and deserves scrutiny.
But I don't find the claim itself the least bit odd - it's pretty what you'd hope and expect to see as the leader of a statutory organisation if you'd made a deliberate decision at the start of your tenure to stop paying so much attention to certain activist organisations campaigning for the rights of particular minority groups.
I am surprised that an organisation whose remit is to protect the rights of minorities considers popularity to be a suitable benchmark for success, and even more surprised that the committee let her get away with suggesting that it was.
I am surprised that an organisation whose remit is to protect the rights of minorities considers popularity to be a suitable benchmark for success, and even more surprised that the committee let her get away with suggesting that it was.
This is also true. And really important.
(It is not in the annual report, as far as I can see, but I have only skimmed it so far).
I hope this is not too tangental. I have just been speaking to my old friend H whose daughter and trans grandson live in the US. H is very worried for both of them. He says there is a big beautiful Trump bill about to be passed in the US which will (I quote H) 'make trans illegal and parents liable to prison'.
Does any shipmate have any reliable info about this proposed legislation? I would love to reassure H.
Comments
If you want me to refer to you in a gendered way, you need to tell me which set of words to use. Or people often guess based on name and/or presentation.
If I am attracted to you and interested in forming some kind of intimate personal relationship with you, then discovering those kinds of things about each other sounds like part of the "are we compatible" coupley negotiation.
One could certainly ask questions about, for example, if you were a feminine-presenting trans woman, is there a point where you have an obligation to inform a partner or potential partner that you are trans, but one must acknowledge in this context that a significant number of trans women have been beaten up and killed by some man who was upset to discover that they were trans.
Fair enough. I decided at some point that I was happy to answer to either “he” or “they”, which simplifies things.
The one time “he/him” has appeared next to my name on a form (someone else filled out the form and made an assumption), two different people independently accidentally called me “Ms. Marsupial”. I am sure there is a lesson there somewhere…
Lots of cis people have things about their bodies that they might need to disclose to someone they're going to have sex with, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up before you're about to have sex - it means you might have to have sex in a different way, but I don't think anyone would expect eg a cis woman with vaginismus to have to bring it up on a date.
That said imagine you have a injury or disability that doesn't obviously show. For instance, you have a giant burn scar all over your stomach. It was from a while ago in a traumatic fire but you escaped and it doesn't hurt anymore (except in memories) but it's considered very ugly. You probably don't wear crop-tops regardless of your gender. Does this you have an obligation to "warn" people before sex? Might tactically want to, but I would say that no you don't morally have to. It's your body and you shouldn't have to tell people about your private traumatic history.
I imagine you see where I am going with that analogy.
https://bsky.app/profile/bernietranders.bsky.social/post/3lrdi7sey6s2u
Coverage of Baroness Falkner before the select committee.
A big enough scar could certainly be a turnoff to some people but yes people who object can sod off. I think that summarizes my opinions on both issues.
I think that, for example, if I knew I was infertile, I would have an obligation to disclose that to a woman I was dating fairly early in the proto-relationship, because I owe her the opportunity to back out before she gets too deeply involved. The same would apply, I think, if I knew that I had made the choice that I didn't want to ever have children.
If I was a gay man, my fertility would be less of an issue, and I suppose if I was just in the market for casual sex, it wouldn't matter at all.
I suppose the question here is whether you thing being trans is just "a thing about your body" of the same order as a scar or something more fundamental.
I'm not sure that's something you (general you) can really make a pronouncement on wrt being a gay man and fertility being less important. I think a lot of this stuff is just about how individuals feel and can't really be guessed like that.
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
Good summary.
I wanted to provide the link without commentary in the first instance.
I have two strong feelings here;
1. Utter despair and distain that the EHRC is behaving this way.
2. Encouraged that the Select Committee (or rather some members) are calling this out.
Oh and on the subject of that survey. I maintain significant scepticism...
Our beloved youngest grandaughter has a lovely trans cis partner. My disdain for the Baroness's reply knows no limits. It's nonsense. Populist or what?
Sorry if I've used the wrong term. In G's birth certificate and passport the gender is given as 'F'. Following surgery and according to inclination, G identifies as hetero male. And a very nice creative person he is too!
Thus my interest in this thread and distress at the position many folk have been put in.
I did some searching online and there is nothing I can find on EHRC public approval. Of course my search is not exhaustive but I am wondering if the Baroness made it up. More likely there is something with a very flawed methodology.
Please tell me some investigative reporter is digging into this.
Trans man is the terminology you're looking for. Cis is "not trans".
A couple of excerpts (emphasis mine):
This conclusion about the consequences of the Tories effectively destroyed the EHRC through Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch various appointments to the commission is also very apt:
AFZ
There are a couple of cases like https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/woman-jailed-posing-as-man-cambridge-crown-court that have made headlines over the last several years, which are presented as being about deception rather than about gender identity.
I think we'd all agree that sexual consent is specific to specific acts and circumstances - for example, consenting to sex with a condom does not imply consent to the same sexual act without a condom (cf. Assange). This doesn't extend to anything someone says surrounding sex, otherwise a whole load of people would be in jail for rape because "I really really love you" or "I'm going to leave my husband / wife" wasn't exactly true.
Prosecutors notably refused to prosecute undercover police officers who had sex with environmental protesters as part of their undercover duties; many of the women involved report feeling raped and violated by this.
Would a trans man who said that he was a cis man, and obtained sexual consent from a partner who would be unwilling to have sex with a trans man be guilty of rape by deception? I think that's not entirely clear, but he might be. If the same man just refers to himself as a man, is that the same? I'd say not, because a trans man is a man, so that's not actually a lie.
I'd certainly say that obtaining sexual consent whilst not mentioning some material fact that you reasonably knew might affect someone's consent is morally reprehensible, and that would apply to adulterers just as much as it would to trans people, undercover cops, and various other sets of people.
As she said, one of the things that motivates her long public service - attempting to engage with legislation - is the belief that the law exists to make life better for people. To me, it seems pretty clear that she believes that what she's doing is the right thing to do - primarily in a legal sense, and quite possibly in other senses too, although her responses are mostly couched in legal terms (unsurprisingly).
As the hearing goes on, it become clearer that she sees this particular issue in terms of taking sides (even if she's trying not to). On one side are women and girls, and on the other side are trans women. (Although I think this is more a phantasmic conception of trans women in conjunction with physical people actively promoting, in an actualised way, the idea of trans women being women.)
As you point out, some members of the committee are on her side. As part of a response to a direct question (15:11 in the timeline) about the bullying she and the EHRC have personally experienced, she said the following:
Shortly after which the chair intervened to "make sure that there wasn't an inadvertent and an unwitting tarnishing of all campaigners and activists of either side", to which Baroness Falkner responded by emphatically endorsing the right to protest.
Lots of public-facing organisations conduct their own surveys of public opinion. I don't believe that they're required to publicise the results, as a rule.
It's the kind of thing that usually gets folded into annual reports.
It is odd data. I have little doubt that the majority of the public don't know what the EHRC even is. Hence I am very interested in the methodology. I hope someone is doing a FOI request here.
I may be completely wrong but this claim is odd and deserves scrutiny.
But I don't find the claim itself the least bit odd - it's pretty what you'd hope and expect to see as the leader of a statutory organisation if you'd made a deliberate decision at the start of your tenure to stop paying so much attention to certain activist organisations campaigning for the rights of particular minority groups.
This is also true. And really important.
(It is not in the annual report, as far as I can see, but I have only skimmed it so far).
Does any shipmate have any reliable info about this proposed legislation? I would love to reassure H.