Campaigners for gender recognition law should avoid media

I think it effectively protects being gender non conforming? But maybe you have to utter the magic word to obtain the protection?

'Gender identity' is hard to define. Perhaps better would be protection against discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes. This would be completely separate from sex, but would allow eg a transwoman to dress in line with the 'women's' dress code, but would also allow a gender nonconforming woman to wear the 'men's' attire. Wouldn't that be good for trans people, 'nonbinaries' and people who don't believe in gender?

That's gender reassignment not gender identity Bernard. But you're right, it probably amounts to the same thing in this context.

I think people are protected from discrimination compared to their own sex ion the basis of transition, or even someone thinking they’re transitioning when they’re not

IANAL though

Right to recognition before the law

In the UK this is covered by the GRA and EA - they have the right to be recognised as their chosen 'gender' under the GRA, and the right to not be discriminated against and to be recognised as transgender by way of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EA even without a GRC.

There's a current thread which includes murder stats:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3747033-so-tell-me-how-many-trans-women-have-died-in-the-UK-last-year

t may not be. They'd have to define gender identity first

But as soon as someone starts to ‘transition’ they can’t be discriminated against compared to members of their sex I think?

So if a male starts wearing skirts to work, they can’t be barred from using the men’s toilets or be sacked (I think this is a good thing )

Yes I don't think transpeople currently have the right to freedom from discrimination on gender identity in itself, and I'm sure that's a trans right that TRAs would want. I'm actually thinking now I'm not sure if gender identity is the basis of the GRA, and therefore that it has been written into law. But that only applies where a GRC has been obtained, presumably. Given that it is still lawful under the Equality Act to maintain some sex separation even from aspiring cross-sex entrants with a GRC, some discrimination does remain. Obviously I think this is a good thing.

I think it’s already covered under the Equalities Act

It may not be. They'd have to define gender identity first.

- Right to non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity

What does that mean then? Can you give an example of this kind of discrimination? Cos I think it’s already covered under the Equalities Act

- Right to private and family life
Yes, again in what way does being trans prevent someone having these things in the same way a non trans person could?

- Right to recognition before the law
Recognition of what? Can you give an example?

- Right to health (including mental health)
As discussed above, not a right anyone else has.

The general murder rate in Brazil is shockingly high

Oldcrone even they are safer than other groups eg. men or women.

in some parts of the world trans people are raped and killed

Is this a reference to south american prostitutes?

I'm struggling to find the stats on this, but I did look at sequential stats showing that African American men would be so, so much safer from homicide if they transitioned.

some parts of the world trans people are raped and killed

While every death is tragic, you will be relieved to know transwomen are murdered at a rate lower than any other group. In terms of risk of murder they are pretty much the safest group in every country.

checks beans

They're in the fridge, so it's fine.

I mean that everyone has the right to life. That's not a trans right as such.

Right to recognition before the law - as in the right to recognition in their professed sex? As in a GRC? That exists. A significant process is currently required to get one in the UK, just like it is required for marriage, a passport, a driving licence.... Given what a GRC means, it seems remarkably cheap and easy to get one.

I am quite an extremist in this area and don't think the GRC should exist, as I regard gender identity as essentially a nonexistent 'thing' that shouldn't have legal recognition, and biological sex is unchangeable. But I acknowledge that I am an extremist, that this is the current law and I have no problem with that, nor would I prevent anyone from trying to get one, obviously. I will fight very hard to prevent the GRA from being 'reformed' so that there is no process involved in asserting that you are now a different sex. Luckily now that problems have emerged in Canada and are emerging in Ireland with reduced GR processes, this seems less likely to happen.

Any male, of any gender, can use facilities set aside for males. Transwomen are already protected in law from being denied entry to eg male’s toilets, male sporting event, male changing rooms, or from accessing health on male wards. They have as much right to a family life as anyone; no one has a right to a baby or to require another individual (female) to use their body for their benefit.

What do you mean ‘right to recognition before law’, the law knows people exist?

And in some parts of the world

The article is about the UK.

Permanent Temporary, yes clearly. My point was that in some parts of the world trans people are raped and killed. Chill your beans.

Interesting thoughts on the “trans narrative” **
Are there any reports broadly surveying trans people, shedding light on the “damage”? Ie people discussing how changing legal gender has negatively impacted them? I only see these kind of articles, which seem pretty anecdotal: news.sky.com/story/hundreds-of-young-trans-people-seeking-help-to-return-to-original-sex-11827740

The right to life exists here, as in the Human Rights Act.

I'm not a human rights activist. Is it your job?

Oh that's timely Trump2016.

The right to health is not an achievable right. Nobody has that, and as a human rights activist you should know that.

I was about to post that the right to demand a particular health treatment is also not a current or achievable right, because doctors cannot and should not be required to provide treatments against their clinical judgement. The right to refuse health treatment is absolute, however.

That's why some actual evidence that putting anyone on cross sex hormones actually has positive outcomes would be helpful to those doctors who are making those clinical decisions in a rapidly changing social setting. And of course, why the use of GnRH agonists to distort normal puberty and crash development in adolescents, is, to say the least, controversial.

Why do you think they don’t have that?

We discriminate on the basis of sex not gender identity.

And in some parts of the world, right to life and right to physical integrity