Suing the Government

Barracker great post - sounds right to me but I'm not a lawyer. I'd contribute to a fund for legal action to protect the rights of women and girls to safety, privacy and dignity. At the moment the rush to provide benefits to transpeople is trampling over womens and girls need for these things and the result is that women and girls will be excluded from public spaces.

I do worry with a daughter who will start puberty in a few years about her right and need for privacy and dignity. It seems like it is being hugely eroded in the name of inclusivity for the few (who happen to be biologically male). It's also being doing in a very dishonest way as it's fine for places to be unisex if labelled as such so people know what to expect but that's not what's happening (Guides, YHA, M&S etc). I believe strongly that transpeople can have spaces for them which don't erode the privacy and dignity of girls and women. We've created separate provisions for disabled people, there is no reason we can't do so for trans.

'Get rid of trans people'
Joke surely

Foxyliz26, if you are a solicitor, and thus I expect you know much more about the law than I do, what human rights do you think trans people need that could not be covered by strong laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex, with explicit mention of the right of anyone of any sex to dress and present as they choose?

Go For it , I,m a solicitor I know plenty of solicitors who will take your money
but nothing will change ,you will be skint , and probably have lost all your friends

you would have to repeal the HRA 1998

assuming you get rid of Trans people , are you then going to start to get rid of every Pride event , and then us lesbians , and our gay male friends
where then ? do you start on Black People? Muslims ? Jews ?

some people should get out a little more

Thanks to Joani Walsh. What she left out is that transadvocate Ollie Entwistle said 'the bar will be set high'.

What we need is the ACTH ‘manifesto’ on the front page of every tabloid, the more people who see that insane ranting, the better.

The government are going to have to provide concrete objective definitions of "woman", "gender", and so forth. I personally think this will be quite entertaining...

'This isn't carte blanche for everyone to be trans exclusionary.'

So any man who says he is trans can breach sex exemptions, pointless having the exemptions then.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5825513/Transgender-women-banned-female-areas-theres-justifiable-reason.html

I'm not a lawyer, or even very bright, but surely many lawyers would want this case? It is high profile and easy to win.

We have to redouble the campaigning to MPs and local authorities. And @skynews and the Times with everything.

We haven't got time, we have to move.

Momentum are fundraising to help Action for Trans Health and the leadership attending fundraisers.

We start the consultation ten laps behind with our legs chained together. Women will have to flood this consultation with responses just to be heard at all, because everyone running it is a transadvocate.

Baroness Barker at a recent 'trans equality' forum, where Entwistle was a speaker, said the discussion was not about if pro-trans reform would happen but when, trans existence is not up for debate etc - and there was a threat to eject people from the event.

They're planning self ID by stealth and an attack on the sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Transadvocates are literally at the heart of it - see Ollie Entwistle, the government's LGBT Head of Equalities - while women's advocates are nowhere near. I mean, we can fill in a form. It's being done now, under our noses, while we are lied to about the Equality Act.

These are all points we can also raise awareness of, and actually raise in the forthcoming consultation about the GRA. This is how the government framed the consultation in its response to the petition last week (bold mine):

"[The GRA review] does not necessarily mean we are proposing self-declaration of gender. The Government will consider the results of the consultation carefully before making any decision on how to reform the GRA. ...

Our research shows that trans people find the [current GRA] process too bureaucratic and hard to use. We therefore propose improving this service, but want to ensure we only do so after a full consultation, to allow us to hear from trans people, and also from women’s groups, faith groups, LGBT groups, young people’s organisations, charities, refuges, and many more individuals and organisations, so that we can decide how best to make these reforms.

"The Government is committed to improving the position of women and girls, and supports their rights, safety, privacy and dignity. We are also committed to improving the position of trans people and supporting their rights. We are confident that advancing the rights of trans people does not have to compromise women’s rights, and will work with all groups to ensure this. "

The consultation is a great opportunity to look at how this process is working for all groups affected and what to do about it.

Good idea, willyou, a kind of Man-Friday-at-home reminds of Iceland.

Exactly, that's the reality of being a woman, we are not a porn inspired clothes and make-up costume.

March too, to run aside legal action.

Artemis I absolutely agree with you, the rights of transgender people to wear what they like and present as they like without being discriminated against should have been addressed by using SEX discrimination law, because that is what it is.

When I was eleven, (this was before the SDA) I campaigned successfully to be allowed to wear trousers to primary school. I find it hard to believe that nearly fifty years later schools and employers still have sexist dress codes, mandating stuff like shaved legs and high heels for women. A woman should not have to claim to be a man to escape being forced to perform femininity.
And if a woman is allowed to wear a skirt, long hair and make up to work, so should a man be. Any man, regardless of what is going on inside his head.
If the law is clear that both sexes are to be treated completely the same in all circumstances, unless there are valid SEX based differences justifying different treatment, there would be no need for specific protections for genderfeelz.

The GRA is rooted in sexist nonsense. The more I think about it, the more I think the only sensible way forward is to campaign for its repeal, and for the introduction of a new, stronger, sex discrimination Act.
I

Dansky!

Now we just need a UK Kara

Kara Dansky has turned her legal practice towards the gender critical fight. Kara is a lawyer as well as a radical feminist, and she's coming through for us.

Kara is going to use her legal expertise to represent professionals who are having their careers threatened because of bogus claims from transgenderists. She's going to represent women to fight against slander and mob mentality. She's going to represent all women and girls by defending Title IX which is a SEX BASED protection. She wants to represent the most vulnerable women among usfemale prisonersto be their council and fight for their protection and safety.

Fundraiser www.patreon.com/gendercriticallawyer/memberships

There is a gender critical lawyer who may well take this on if we ask - and who is crowd funding for support of legal cases she is taking on around self id. I'll go and find her details

I linking to a post I put up yesterday about similar thoughts and possible legal grounds - IMNAL - it does seem as though legislation by stealth has taken place and informed consent has not been sought for the changing the biological basis of sex definition

Agree Artemis

Great post BarrackerBarmer, I agree with you that we should sue the government, as well as take various other actions. I agree that the problem started when they passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the government then started messing with the the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA). It is clear they eventually repealed the the SDA entirely, and replaced it with the Equality Act 2010, because the GRA and the SDA were in direct conflict with each other from the start. The only way they could justify the GRA was to keep amending the SDA or get rid of it completely. By passing the GRA they codified stereotypes into law, hence the ‘live for 2 years as the opposite gender’ (when they use the word ‘gender’ here clearly they really mean sex). This enabled stereotypes to then define someone’s sex, rather than their actual biological sex. Once they enshrined that into law there was no real way that females could still be a protected group in any meaningful way.

What the government should have done was kept the SDA, and made sure there was a clause in it that clearly stated that it is unlawful to discriminate against males or females, who do not dress in attire traditionally associated with the opposite sex, or who have had plastic surgery etc., i.e. a male should not be treated any differently to any other male regardless of what he wears or what he looks like. A third space should have also been offered (where possible) for those who do not feel able or want to use facilities/institutions etc, designed for their own sex. It would have given them the option of either using the spaces designed for their own sex, or of putting pressure on institutions to provide a 3rd space for themselves. In my opinion that is what the government should have done, instead of passing the sexist nonsensical GRA.

Personally I think we need to fight to repeal the GRA and reinstate a new version of the SDA, that is the only way for us to regain our full rights, as I see it. There are several ways we can go about it, suing is a good idea, protests are another, whatever we end up doing I suspect it will not be a quick process.