Suing the Government

[BarrackerBarmer]

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?

Artemis I absolutely agree with you, the rights of transgender people to wear what they like and present as they like without being discriminated against should have been addressed by using SEX discrimination law, because that is what it is.

When I was eleven, (this was before the SDA) I campaigned successfully to be allowed to wear trousers to primary school. I find it hard to believe that nearly fifty years later schools and employers still have sexist dress codes, mandating stuff like shaved legs and high heels for women. A woman should not have to claim to be a man to escape being forced to perform femininity.
And if a woman is allowed to wear a skirt, long hair and make up to work, so should a man be. Any man, regardless of what is going on inside his head.
If the law is clear that both sexes are to be treated completely the same in all circumstances, unless there are valid SEX based differences justifying different treatment, there would be no need for specific protections for genderfeelz.

The GRA is rooted in sexist nonsense. The more I think about it, the more I think the only sensible way forward is to campaign for its repeal, and for the introduction of a new, stronger, sex discrimination Act.
I

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

Exactly, that's the reality of being a woman, we are not a porn inspired clothes and make-up costume.

March too, to run aside legal action.

These are all points we can also raise awareness of, and actually raise in the forthcoming consultation about the GRA. This is how the government framed the consultation in its response to the petition last week (bold mine):

"[The GRA review] does not necessarily mean we are proposing self-declaration of gender. The Government will consider the results of the consultation carefully before making any decision on how to reform the GRA. ...

Our research shows that trans people find the [current GRA] process too bureaucratic and hard to use. We therefore propose improving this service, but want to ensure we only do so after a full consultation, to allow us to hear from trans people, and also from women’s groups, faith groups, LGBT groups, young people’s organisations, charities, refuges, and many more individuals and organisations, so that we can decide how best to make these reforms.

"The Government is committed to improving the position of women and girls, and supports their rights, safety, privacy and dignity. We are also committed to improving the position of trans people and supporting their rights. We are confident that advancing the rights of trans people does not have to compromise women’s rights, and will work with all groups to ensure this. "

The consultation is a great opportunity to look at how this process is working for all groups affected and what to do about it.

They're planning self ID by stealth and an attack on the sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Transadvocates are literally at the heart of it - see Ollie Entwistle, the government's LGBT Head of Equalities - while women's advocates are nowhere near. I mean, we can fill in a form. It's being done now, under our noses, while we are lied to about the Equality Act.

Baroness Barker at a recent 'trans equality' forum, where Entwistle was a speaker, said the discussion was not about if pro-trans reform would happen but when, trans existence is not up for debate etc - and there was a threat to eject people from the event.

We start the consultation ten laps behind with our legs chained together. Women will have to flood this consultation with responses just to be heard at all, because everyone running it is a transadvocate.

We haven't got time, we have to move.

Momentum are fundraising to help Action for Trans Health and the leadership attending fundraisers.

We have to redouble the campaigning to MPs and local authorities. And @skynews and the Times with everything.

I'm not a lawyer, or even very bright, but surely many lawyers would want this case? It is high profile and easy to win.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5825513/Transgender-women-banned-female-areas-theres-justifiable-reason.html

'This isn't carte blanche for everyone to be trans exclusionary.'

So any man who says he is trans can breach sex exemptions, pointless having the exemptions then.

The government are going to have to provide concrete objective definitions of "woman", "gender", and so forth. I personally think this will be quite entertaining...

What we need is the ACTH ‘manifesto’ on the front page of every tabloid, the more people who see that insane ranting, the better.

Thanks to Joani Walsh. What she left out is that transadvocate Ollie Entwistle said 'the bar will be set high'.

Go For it , I,m a solicitor I know plenty of solicitors who will take your money
but nothing will change ,you will be skint , and probably have lost all your friends

you would have to repeal the HRA 1998

assuming you get rid of Trans people , are you then going to start to get rid of every Pride event , and then us lesbians , and our gay male friends
where then ? do you start on Black People? Muslims ? Jews ?

some people should get out a little more

Foxyliz26, if you are a solicitor, and thus I expect you know much more about the law than I do, what human rights do you think trans people need that could not be covered by strong laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex, with explicit mention of the right of anyone of any sex to dress and present as they choose?

'Get rid of trans people'
Joke surely

Barracker great post - sounds right to me but I'm not a lawyer. I'd contribute to a fund for legal action to protect the rights of women and girls to safety, privacy and dignity. At the moment the rush to provide benefits to transpeople is trampling over womens and girls need for these things and the result is that women and girls will be excluded from public spaces.

I do worry with a daughter who will start puberty in a few years about her right and need for privacy and dignity. It seems like it is being hugely eroded in the name of inclusivity for the few (who happen to be biologically male). It's also being doing in a very dishonest way as it's fine for places to be unisex if labelled as such so people know what to expect but that's not what's happening (Guides, YHA, M&S etc). I believe strongly that transpeople can have spaces for them which don't erode the privacy and dignity of girls and women. We've created separate provisions for disabled people, there is no reason we can't do so for trans.

You are a solicitor your arse, Foxyliz26.

You can't even construct a sentence.

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 http://www.unwomenuk.orgg<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.unwomenuk.org/" target="_blank">//

Is it just me who perceives the irony of their web domain name?

I'm always very sceptical about taking on governments legally. A bit like those who tried to bring Tony Blair to justice over Iraq... you always think the State and the powers that be will find some way to wriggle out of it, some obscure interpretation of the law that justifies whatever they want to do.

I've just been reading this link on the birth certificate thread www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/990.html
about a TIM trying to get himself listed as a babies parent, not father on a birth certificate.

The judge has to weigh up the TIMs human rights, and quotes from the Godwin Case, which led to the introduction of the GRA.

"In the twenty first century the right of transsexuals to personal development and to physical and moral security in the full sense enjoyed by others in society cannot be regarded as a matter of controversy requiring the lapse of time to cast clearer light on the issues involved. In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone is not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable''

''the Working Group felt able to propose as one of the options full legal recognition of the new gender, subject to certain criteria and procedures…. No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from the change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.''

The bolded bits show that the judges were clearly thinking in terms of post operative transsexuals, and as regards the privacy parts, passing transsexuals at that.

Would it be possible to take some case to the court of human rights to demonstrate that in fact concrete and substantial detriment to the public interest can in fact flow from allowing men to legally change sex?

And that the effect on women and girls is more than minor inconvenience?

Exactly that, terfininthevoid

There was another comment in the judgement that leapt out at me - something about allowing such a small and limited cohort wouldn't be enough to overturn/undermine the entire system.

I can't remember the wording but it suggested acknowledgement that the 'system' of recognising sex rests upon clear differentiation between male and female. And that to corrupt that definition risks undermining ALL recognition of females. But that risk would be taken entirely because of statistical negligibility.

I only recall part of this. But it seemed like the judges knew the full implications of ratifying a lie would be to risk undermining the entire truth, and did it anyway, because: the lie (some males can be female) would be statistically negligible weighed against the truth (only females are female), which they assumed would prevail.

But the lie HAS utterly dissolved the legal truth in its entirety. They foresaw the disaster but recklessly minimised its potential.

A generation of children are being gaslighted. Consent, boundaries, dignity, privacy and safety of females is being thrown away because MH services can not help the suicidal feelings of males without this legal lie.

Go For it , I,m a solicitor I know plenty of solicitors who will take your money

Cool story. You seem to be telling a few of these today. Interesting life you've led!