TransLucent have submitted a formal complaint to NHRIs that EHRC is is failing to adhere to the Paris Principles

I don't think the likes of Translucent give a tiny toss about anyone else's rights if it gets in the way of trans rights/demands/privileges.

According to a blog by Joly/the GLP, groups didn't intervene because they'd face too much abuse and it could trigger Charity Commission investigations.

If they genuinely thought they had a case, surely they'd rise above the abuse? After all, they would have had their righteousness to protect them. And quite why they thought "putting their heads above a legal parapet" (to paraphrase) would somehow lead to an investigation is beyond me. They must think Mermaids got investigated because they drew attention to themselves, rather than looking as dodgy as all hell.

How does TransLucent think the principle of Pluralism is upheld if the law was changed to say that everyone has to believe TWAW? What other faith positions are immune from people being allowed to say they don't believe in them? And how would the NHRIs review go in the alternative scenario where all women's rights are declared effectively defunct and void because any male who wishes to be included must be so, such that there is nothing that is single sex any longer?

And yes to the whole 'we weren't consulted' bit.

It's been repeatedly explained. Laws do not have to be something they agree with or to. They are not the VIP special guest stars of the human race. They do not have the casting vote over the rights permitted to others.

They don't want impartiality at all, they will only be satisfied with absolute bias and compliance to their demands, and active hostility and derision towards the rights and equalities of everyone else. Witness the very silly questions to the new potential EHRC chair, which were basically 'will you swear to be a subservient mouthpiece to trans political agendas and against everyone else?'

No. Is the basic answer. The SC judgement merely returned balance and impartiality to say that other people's rights had equal precendence: it's equality of consideration and rights that they are so very, very cross about. And they cannot apparently compute that others have rights as well as them.

But whatever, let them rage on.

There’s the rub - they don’t want third spaces, they never have.

Most of these men are AGPs who are attracted to women and get off by invading our spaces. They will never settle for third spaces. We women must stop turning the cheek. We must start standing up to these mentally ill men..

That’s what I’m confused about (TRAs saying as if the SC ruling will change). The SC stated that women are allowed to have private spaces away from men. They were clear about sex being based on ones biology. They have been using women’s private spaces for a decade, illegally. Were women consulted EVER about men in our spaces, prisons, sports, locker rooms, shelters? No! And yet here all these TRA orgs whining that they haven’t been consulted. The hypocrisy from these people is never ending. And to demand a spot on the EHRC board?! They are less than 1% of the pop but believe they should be represented on the board? No! You are already represented on the board by LGBTQ members. They are the most insane group of people. And to whine that they have no power when our public institutions are still refusing to implement the SC ruling - this makes this group extremely powerful.

This is the time for the EHRC and government to stand up and fight for women. If society isn’t rectified about this now, then we will never get these AGP men out of our spaces.

This does not surprise me. I had a university friend who objected to the 'M' in FGM (also thought that women secretly ruled the world 🙄). He's 'transitioned' since.

But the lovely Steph works there!
https://translucent.org.uk/steph-richards-uk-my-trans-woman-story

Seems like a good venue for explaining sex based rights.

I agree. Got to be seen to be doing something.

Let them waste their time!

Where were TransLucent, Stonewall etc all when the Supreme Court was taking submissions on the FWS/Scottish Govt case?
Were they so complacently certain that their side would be supported by the SC judgement that they didn't need to bother?
Too late to be making a fuss about it now.

They definitely are, but I think it’s also for attention and plaudits from the “community”.

Quite.

I'm not sure that group the UK has been reported to, really is that shit hot on human rights nor has any teeth whatsoever.

OK, point me to one international treaty the UK is a member of which says trans women trump women in the pecking order.

Just one.

If there aren't any, we don't have to listen to any of these organisations. They can only criticise us for not holding principles we actually agreed to uphold.

Yep

Fucking hell, some of the "full members" on that map are countries where FGM is still prevalent.

@IwantToRetire the Windsor protocol is about the movement of goods primarily but it does tie NI to the GRA amongst other EU equalities stuff.

The GRA does not say that bio men can be women, it is limited to certain rights re pensions, marriages etc with plenty of exceptions.

No.

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions has quite a lot of members.

You might want to keep the following in mind; the USA isn't a member at all. Finland and Italy couldn't be arsed with it either.

Then lets reflect on the fact that Russia is a Class A member and Iran is a Class C member.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Alliance_of_National_Human_Rights_Institutions#:~:text=GANHRI%20is%20constituted%20as%20a,United%20Nations%20Office%20at%20Geneva.

At this point you will be probably thinking, what a fucking farce this organisation is and what a waste of hot air by Translucent.

And you'd be right. But it sounds a official and it sounds quite scary doesn't it, until you understand what an utter load of bollocks it really is in practice.

Steph Richards of TransLucent organised that protest outside FiLiA’s Portsmouth conference in a busy square with kids around.
The protesters drowned out the voices of sex trafficking survivors talking inside the venue.
They held up Amnesty-branded placards reading I AM WHO I SAY I AM, which surely goes against all safeguarding principles & everything kids are taught about stranger danger.
They chalked obscene drawings & phrases on the pavement where passing children could see them.
Nice.

Can you point to where it says in the European Convention on Human Rights that men who wish they were women matter more than actual women?

We signed up to the ECHR in the early 1950s, after years of careful negotiation by people who actually knew what they were doing.

All these so called human rights lobby groups in 2025 are packed full of overprivileged grifters, educated far beyond their level of natural intelligence, who are fucking making it up as they go along.

We don't have to listen to them. They have zero authority. They need to stay in their fucking lane. They need to focus on upholding the obligations member states actually signed up to, the way they were actually written. Not the way they personally would write them in 2025.

@IwantToRetire The UK does comply with the European Human rights Conventions already.

Not the first time TransLucent have done this:
https://sex-matters.org/about-us/what-we-are-up-against/ehrc-timeline/