Sarah Brown Why are UK trans people upset?

There are a lot of people out there who have undergone various degrees of 'gender -re-assignment' on the back of a big wave of trans totalitarianism ( in which nobody was allowed to counter, to question or to disagree) who are finding that this has not turned out quite as they'd imagined it would; that it doesn't solve all of their issues; doesn't give them women's rights and protections ( if they are male) and that they cannot live in a bubble of 'trans euphoria' for ever. That's tough.......though it was always inevitable.

All of the cheerleaders and allies for this fad have total responsibility for their encouragement of indivuals who have gone on to adopt trans identities and have surgeries; and also for their abusive treatment of those who have spoken out.

Which activities does Sarah think he is going to be arrested for, in that article?

Only if you bother to read the Act, you mean.

Oh “Aunty Sarah” who bludgeoned his way into an all women’s livejournal group years ago and made it all about him. Vile man.

But it might backfire; the Goodwin judgement was 27 years ago and reads now like it is from a different era.

Would be an interesting time to stress article 8 right to privacy and a private life, given that the Labour government is increasingly frustrated by what it feels is its over wide application to asylum cases.

Most of the problem TRA face is of their own doing, though.

They only things someone need to get a GRC is to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, two years worth of id and, at the time of its introduction, a divorce if married. He chose to have surgery, it isnt part of the process.

So for the rest of the population, the person hasn't changed. There is no sex change.

And the rest of the country need to have single sex spaces.

If they made the conditions of getting a GRC that the applicant was always percieved to be the opposite sex, the arguments that single sex spaces had to be single sex would be harder to argue. And those with GRC may have been included in the opposite sex spaces.

But TRA made it into a admin process only. Why would spaces be needed for women and men with documentation? How could they be justified?

I can’t help being influenced by reading Sarah Brown’s blog a few years ago, which I found genuinely frightening, though I don’t remember the details of why. And their initially successful push to change Cambridge’s understanding of the Equality Act to include gender identity rather than gender reassignment.

But on the terms of the article - yes I do get that the goalposts keep changing. SB transitioned long before the big surge in adolescent dysphoria/ female referrals. As they say, long before same sex marriage. One of the issues with the GRA for me is that the spousal exit clause does imply that there has been a sex change. It is quite old fashioned in that regard.

I don’t think we have seen even the beginning of the changes that the SC ruling will bring. RMW won’t be the only one attempting a rerun/revisit of the Goodwin case. But it might backfire; the Goodwin judgement was 27 years ago and reads now like it is from a different era. SB would like to hoard rights from that time that were based on the poor rationale that ‘it’s only a few people’. Maybe they’ll start wearing a dinosaur badge.

No. Sarah Brown is very much a blast from the past - anyone in the GC Twitter crowd circa 2015 will remember he sent a tweet telling - saying suck my balls

Isn't this thread muddling Sarah Brown and Sarah Barker? The latter is he of the pickled balls.

"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."

I think this clearly indicates the conditions under which the GRA subsection 1 does not apply. Subsequent legislation, prior legislation and the GRA itself can constitute grounds for disapplying Subsection 1. It wasn't a secret. It was simply misrepresented for years.

Also sport and parenting status and some crimes.

Enough things to make it clear that nobody believed a piece of paper could change somebody's sex.

Had Sarah Brown read the GRA (2004), it would have been obvious that the exceptions made it impossible to actually live as the opposite sex.

This was later re-enforced by the EA (2010).

In April of 2025 the state turned round and told me that I had been mistaken. That it never regarded me as female. That I was male the whole time.

I agree that the GRA legislation doesn't make much sense, but it's best to read the small print.

"collated several thousand tweets talking about abuse of transgender patients that she alleges exposed "institutional transphobia" in the medical profession that "would be on the national news" if it "was happening to any other minority"
While I completely agree that issues of discrimination should be addressed, why aren't we able to collate several thousand tweets and allege they expose a worrying trend of misogyny? I mean, we do, but we aren't taken seriously, we're just called bigots.

That's how I see it @deadpan - and Kite Trust has peddled unscientific gender woo as fact throughout schools & unis - I do wonder if they were involved with Cambs Council training and why they got sued by Lizzie Pitt.

SB has been busy since the "Aunty Sarah" (his Twitter handle) days on Twitter back in circa 2015.

So it's likely that Sarah Brown was in on the fact that stonewall misrepresented the law and is now calling for sympathy.
I have every sympathy for the vulnerable people mis sold this lie, and the kids being told they'll be a different sex and it'll sort out all their woes. I have no time for anyone going into this with their eyes wide open and plowing on, eroding rights for girls and women.

This. SB was instrumental at Stonewall & Lib Dem, is trustee at Kite Trust who pedal this to our schools & throughout organisations, and in poly relationship which got a fawning write up in guardian.

Which is edging closer and closer to 'a bit of paper doesn't change your sex, because sex can't change'.

I always think of the position of the young women suckered into this first, because of people I know. Some of them have done such damage to themselves. Facing up to reality fifteen years in must be hard.

Which, to summarise the SC, boils down to "the acquisition of a GRC changes your sex for all purposes unless it actually matters".

If this is the same Sarah Brown, then while a councillor in Cambridge they worked to undermine womens rights under the EA.

https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/10/31/cambridge-council-equality-act/

Brown knew even back then the the single sex exemption was a thing. So cry me a river but I really don't care if Brown is upset.

The actions of Brown and people like Brown chipping away at womens rights over the years, directly contributed to the environment which led to FWS going to court.

I don't disagree that it was a monumental fuck up by the gov to agree to put procedures in place to deny material reality.

Yes, that small handful of people with a GRC can rightly feel a bit pissed off, up to a point, but they were sold a lie, they knew they were sold a lie, but they hoped that they would get away with it. As far as men with a GRC did, they did get away with it. Then their other male chums, the other 85 - 97% or so, without the GRC and with zero intention of having their penises chopped off, decided to muscle in on the act.

So complain to Parliament for passing a duff law, in the Gender Recognition Act; complain to your trans activist brothers, but don't complain to the rest of us, because we are sick and tired of this nonsense.

That rubbish in the Lib Dem article is why I have resigned my membership. My monthly dues have gone instead towards Sex Matters.

It is indeed.

This was always going to be the problem with creating a legal fiction that negatively impacted on other groups, and a legal fiction that had no basis in material reality.

Basically it relies on governments continuing to allow that legal fiction and allow a group in society to live as if they are a sex that they most certainly are not and are not in any way.