Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Suing the Government

68 replies

BarrackerBarmer · 09/06/2018 22:07

Let's play with an idea.

The government has created legislation over decades that protects women.
The foundation of those women's rights is this:
Women are biologically distinguishable in real life from men.
We are mammals, women are female, men are male.
This is a matter of material fact.
We are therefore recognised in law, as a biological category distinct from men.
We have been, as a biological group, first denied, and then granted rights as a biological category, based on our real life, biological existence as distinguishable from men.
The law now seeks to redress specific injustices (like 'women' being denied the vote etc)
The word 'women' is used in all such legislation - but CRUCIALLY - is NOT defined explicitly as 'adult human female'. Possibly because the law can be sloppy, and also because it is so implicit that all references to 'women' in these laws, are without question references to biological females.
Also, these laws refer to righting the wrongs effected upon that exact same target group - biological females.
Those laws were and are for females.
(The word SEX is also not explicitly defined, nor is FEMALE despite being referred to multiple times. These concepts, I believe, were considered obvious beyond question)

Then, the Equality Act 2010 explicitly makes SEX a protected characteristic. And it lays out how it is legal for the SEX women to EXCLUDE men, in order to be monitored as a discrete group; to measure inequality; to seek redress for discrimination.

BUT.

The government then creates a conflict situation by introducing the circular concept 'gender' into law which to all intents and purposes is literally "false sex'.
It also takes the implicit meaning of 'woman' ( biological female ) and alters it, to become explicitly divorced from sex. All the laws intended to protect biological females now instantly belong to both sexes, and it is legally impossible for the law to recognise females as distinct from males.

So laws for females have instantly altered to become laws for both sexes.
It dissolves female rights in one fell swoop.

And the very foundation of redress for equality, which is the right to be recognised as a group that EXCLUDES MALES, for the purpose of being COMPARED to males, has been eliminated.

It distils all references to being of the female biological sex into one remaining exemption clause of the Equality Act. And then it issues contradictory guidance which makes it abundantly clear that there is a head-on conflict between REAL SEX and GENDER (false sex) and that false sex can trump real sex for most practical purposes.

It has made female SEX rights unenforceable.
They were there, and then they were gone.

I believe the UK government has failed to protect the human rights of its female population. It has first legally acknowledged our existence as a biological sex. Recognised the injustices we face as a biological group. Introduced rights specifically for us as a biological sex. And then, it has unilaterally removed all of our rights as a biological sex.

And it has publicly announced its support for 'false sex' and for the further downgrading of 'actual sex' to the point that asserting one's intention to defend one's human rights is potentially a 'hate crime'.

I am not a lawyer, as you can probably tell!

But it seems to me to explicitly recognise a group of humans as discrete, and to acknowledge their need for specific rights as that discrete group, but then to remove their right to recognition as that group, is to deny them access to all the rights they were originally granted.

Do we have a case to sue the government for comprehensibly eliminating human rights for females?

OP posts:
MrsWooster · 09/06/2018 22:21

Not a lawyer either and I would LOVE to think you're right!

thebewilderness · 09/06/2018 22:30

I agree. One of the most egregious things they did was repeal all the laws that previously provided sex protections for women when they passed the EA. The claim was that the EA made them unnecessary.

Some people may still believe that stripping women of their rights in the name of equality was an unintended consequence.

WillYouPickSomething · 09/06/2018 23:26

Also not a lawyer. I would contribute to a case being brought forward.

What is the latest on JJ v Labour?

Pratchet · 10/06/2018 00:10

One of the most egregious things they did was repeal all the laws that previously provided sex protections for women when they passed the EA. The claim was that the EA made them unnecessary

Every law? I didn't know this.

thebewilderness · 10/06/2018 00:25

I sisn't either till I read the 2010 EA summary and purpose. Bit of a shock.

GeordieTerf · 10/06/2018 00:36

JJ just posted on Twitter that we should expect an update next week Smile

Terfulike · 10/06/2018 00:42

Update on what

Terfulike · 10/06/2018 00:46

I definitely think we should sue the government though. They've sold us down the river

mancheeze · 10/06/2018 01:10

You're right[ barracker.]

This is how I understand it as well. Sex based rights come into direct conflict with gender identity laws.

Sex is an immutable, testable classification.
Gender/gender identity is NOT since it's subjective.

Your entire logic proposal makes absolute sense and has been my position since I've needed to argue against gender identity laws.

WillYouPickSomething · 10/06/2018 02:21

Inspired by Made in Dagenham.

National strike from women on a Friday. No cooking, no supervising homework and the such, until we see our human rights returned?

Terfulike · 10/06/2018 02:34

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

Terfulike · 10/06/2018 02:36

I was thinking more of a March in London, like the poll tax or something

Italiangreyhound · 10/06/2018 03:39

@BarrackerBarmer I'd like to think you are right.

I wonder what precedent there is in law for this.

If we won they would need to re-think all these laws. But even if we failed, it would publicise the whole issue.

I feel so sorry for those poor women trapped in jail with a male.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outrage-transgender-prisoner-living-woman-12022675

'A transgender woman has caused outrage among female prisoners after winning a jail's 'Miss Fitness' competition by a "country mile".'

'Stewart has not had gender reassignment surgery but is living life as a woman in the female section of the jail.'

'The women inmates have had to accept that Stewart is being allowed to live as a woman, despite not having had surgery.

“That means she is in the showers at the same time as other inmates, which some have found quite awkard.'

I'd say it was a damn site worse then awkward.

Italiangreyhound · 10/06/2018 03:47

Does anyone know how Asda's mass legal action over equal pay for women went, what happened in that court case?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29753702

Italiangreyhound · 10/06/2018 03:48

I just saw this.

'50 HUMAN RIGHTS CASES THAT TRANSFORMED BRITAIN'

rightsinfo.org/infographics/fifty-human-rights-cases/

I cannot see that any of these are specifically about females!

Lifesavingorange · 10/06/2018 06:24

I would absolutely contribute to a Crowdfunder for this, a Sex Matters campaign.

It’s an absolute mess and it needs to be sorted. Our sex based protections need to be brought back. It’s a human rights issue.

I would very much like to be involved in a campaign like this if it gets going.

Lifesavingorange · 10/06/2018 06:42

Not just the Government either. We need to be lobbying all organisations that SEX matters. Like the UN who don’t appear to under the difference www.unwomenuk.org/

Lifesavingorange · 10/06/2018 06:42

Understand!

Artemis7 · 10/06/2018 07:06

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.

Pratchet · 10/06/2018 07:10

Agree Artemis

womanformallyknownaswoman · 10/06/2018 08:28

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

womanformallyknownaswoman · 10/06/2018 08:29

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

womanformallyknownaswoman · 10/06/2018 08:37

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

Lifesavingorange · 10/06/2018 08:46

Now we just need a UK Kara

Lifesavingorange · 10/06/2018 08:46

Dansky!