Repeal the GRA

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3250175-Girl-Guides-Panel-discussion-at-Speakers-house-woman-male-woman-male-male-male?messages=100&pg=1

Thanks Artemis. I've come up against this over and over again.

For example: it's 2016 - which is worse - having a pig of a president who is sexist and exploitative in every possible way, or have a wonderful female president who within the first year would push through a law on self ID which would irredeemably harm every woman in America?

These are very dark days.

‘We should withdraw or campaign to change treaties and declarations that fudge biological sex.’

I agree.

Theresa May has talked previously about including withdrawing from the ECHR in the conservative manifesto, the tories now say they will postpone including it in their manifesto until after Brexit. I was against the move, now I think she is correct, and we should withdraw from it, and I say this as someone who has always been very much on left. It is very clear that international institutions and so called human rights bodies, are focused on imposing and pushing for laws that are directly harmful to females, and actually deprive us of our rights. What is interesting is that May and other tories want to withdraw from the ECHR for their own reasons.

I think the fact many prominent MP’s already want to withdraw from the ECHR and establish a new human rights act, looks good for any campaigns for female’s rights, that has this as one of its aims. It would mean the GRA could easily be repealed, and new laws that don’t conflict with female’s rights could be written into the new human rights act, as it would be completely down to the government. Therefore, I think withdrawing from it is a good aim for us to add to our campaigning.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/britain-bound-european-human-rights-laws-least-another-five/amp/

Oh for god's sake! Behave!

You seem to think posters are here to service your needs. For tonight, I am removing my services...

Night All!

As is often quoted at me I'm sorry but I don't wish to discuss about you but I am interested if you wish to discuss the points I raised in relation to the GRC

How? What I meant was quite clear... too many people on any and all sides of 'the fence' are being sucked into TRA crap. They are succeeding in setting hetero against homo against trans. That you chose to translate that whole post, where the menaing wasquiet the opoiste of that you gave to that single line, shows how well they are doing!

And again, you seem to think that I want to do that and that I don't know about transsexual rights and operations, despite my often having said (and repeated on this post) that I was close to a transman as he transitioned back in the 80s.

Maybe I got that idea from "Nobody, whether trans, gay or otherwise benefits... only a small, vocal and aggressive subset of men gain anything... and I, for one, have no wish to give them what they want."

The Dr ewan case is interesting is it not the cases leading up to April Ashley are also interesting and the post war trans men and woman who had these rights upto that point.

For all of you that choose to ignore trans men Where did that come from?

Who said anything like that, other than to make a vague accusation?

For all of you that choose to ignore trans men and there long standing fright for rights in trans equity and focus on trans woman as the driving force. There have been trans men in all of the discussions and consultations in relation to trans equality from the beginning.

And for you last post - please, stop reducing this to use of loos. That too is purely a diversion, designed to outrage... it isn't the real problem, it is a symptom, not a cause!

If you work as a /with lawyers then you should be smart enough to see through that and to reject it as the trite whitewashing that it is!

I think in relation to trans men there is the interesting case of Ewan Forbes-Sempill

"An obituary reported that 'Dr Forbes-Sempill went about her change of gender in the quietest possible manner. She applied to the Sheriff of Aberdeen, and acquired a warrant for birth re-registration. Then, on 12 September 1952, there appeared a notice in the advertisement columns of Aberdeen's The Press and Journal, which stated that henceforth Dr Forbes-Sempill wished to be known as Dr Ewan Forbes-Sempill.' Three weeks later, he married his housekeeper, Isabella 'Pat' Mitchell.The question of inheritance only raised its head in 1965, when Ewan's elder brother, the 19th Lord Sempill, died. In Scotland,
a barony can pass through the female line if there are no sons in the family, so Ewan's niece got that title, and it was assumed that Ewan would inherit the family baronetcy, Forbes of Craigievar. But a cousin, John Forbes-Sempill, challenged Ewan's succession on the grounds that that title could only pass to a male heir. The case was taken to the Scottish Court of Session, which ruled in favour of Ewan. The cousin fought on until, in 1968, James Callaghan, the then home secretary, upheld the Scottish court's decision: he ordered that the name of Sir Ewan Forbes of Craigievar be entered in the Roll of Baronets. In theory, this should have set a precedent, but details of the case were kept secret for years, meaning it could have no bearing on subsequent legal rulings. Indeed, official records have only just been released to the National Archives of Scotland, ending a 50-year mystery over the case of Dr Forbes-Sempill. "

Many of these decisions have been made by people in power to protect privlage. And the case of Dr ewan demonstrates none of these things are new creations

foxy Whilst I reject your extremely hyperbolic, presumably rhetorical, question, I wholly agree that the GRA is bady written and will need a huge amount of time, money and social goodwill. The whole point of fighting back against TRA tactics is to enable that process to start - with everyone having their voice heard.

But whilst every party is are demanding the other stop asking for its erasure, nothing will change. Nobody will be bothered to look further, to unwrap the layers of lies and obfuscations and more crap laws will be passed.

We all need to stop buying into that TRA tactic, not allow them to divide and conquer. Nobody, whether trans, gay or otherwise benefits... only a small, vocal and aggressive subset of men gain anything... and I, for one, have no wish to give them what they want. So I am not going to argue with you. Just point out why I disagree and hope you see what I mean!

So In re-pealing the GRA 2004
you are going to make one of these guys use ladies loos ?

so which one is the unlucky boy ?

The GRA 2004 , was introduced due to The UK Blair Government losing the Goodwin and I ruling , in the ECHR

there will be no chance of ever repealing the whole GRA 2004 , its badly written and done on the cheap, but please feel free to try , there are a few solicitors who work in the same chambers as me who will take your money

first you would have to repeal the HRA 1998

Always amazes me all these bar room lawyers , !

then after you have removed all the Trans people, are you coming for us Lesbians and Gays , then who ?

For TRAs who persist in such turnaboutery too

"Will you please get your thoughts out of everyone's knickers!"

Now there's a piece of solid advice for transphobes ;-)

Will you please get your thoughts out of everyone's knickers!

Reducing this to where we piss is not the point! As well you know.

"Why can't they use the men's, wakame?"

They can, but if trans people were restricted to facilities that correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth, they would have to use the women's facilities.

"Wakame, would you prefer it if all us XX people never accessed female facilities set aside for us? Because that is what will happen."

We already have a GRA, the women's facilities already have trans women in them and have done for years. And yet I still had to queue for the women's toilet at Heathrow and Waterloo station a couple of weeks ago. So I don't know exactly when this mass exodus of females from female spaces is going to happen, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet.

I do however favour a third, single person toilet for transphobes. Until we have gender neutral toilets of course, which I think is the ideal.

Why can't they use the men's, wakame?

Whachoosaynow?

Oh! Silly Sunday... as you were Wakame.

If you force trans men to use women's facilities, how will you stop predatory men from pretending to be trans men in order to access those spaces?

Thanks for that comprehensive analysis MeettheNewAccount!

What an irony that (1) the 2002 judgment rests heavily on the idea that, however murky the science, if someone is determined enough to get their genitals removed, their identity was genuine. Hence 'the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable.'

But that (2) now the court is saying that it's a breach of human rights to expect any operation?!

I suspect the average person would accept that a post-operative transwoman should be treated as a woman in almost all respects, and so would endorse the 2002 Christine decision.

But I'm sure that the average person is not happy with the implications of the latest decisions.