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?

I'm interested if this is a goer. Will donate time and money.

Fox don't make me laugh. Lose friends? - if I've got a single friend who would dump me over this they are well lost.

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 ?

Yes - that's why people like Lucy Masoud and Linda Bellos are prominent gender critical feminists. Because they're so very white and heterosexual and goy-ish.

Fox don't make me laugh. Lose friends? - if I've got a single friend who would dump me over this they are well lost.

Watch Michelle Keegan on the BBC programme, Who do you think know you are? Her great grandmother was hated by society 100 years ago, look how delighted and proud Michelle is of her great grandmother. I suspect the same will be said for feminists fighting this, in future. Actually many people aren't against women fighting for women and children at all, there is very little support for the trans trend of men bullying society. Though this is much smaller in the grand scheme than suffrage.

assuming you get rid of Trans people dial down the melodramatics foxyliz26 it's making you look incredibly foolish.

Also not a lawyer, but I believe that in order to bring a successful case one would have to show that the government had acted illegally and that in doing so had caused actual harm.

So where is the illegal action? It can't be because of changes made by Parliament (because Parliament is sovereign and cannot bind future decisions by Parliament to repeal legislation). So is there some international obligation of which the UK is in breach? (I don't know the answer)

What is the actual harm caused? This is where we need a strong test case, which unfortunately means someone being directly and materially disadvantaged by the EA and the way that it has been interpreted by various bodies. I would love a lawyer to take a case on behalf of the women prisoners who are being forced to share showers with TIM prisons, but they are not the most sympathetic group in terms of getting traction more widely.The ideal candidate for challenging the Labour Party's illegal policy on AWS and Women's Officer posts would have been the woman who came second to Madigan, as she would have been able to point to direct disadvantage as a result of the LP policy

A lot of local authorities have not been protecting sex as per the 2010 equality act. If harm has happened in that LA, then a case could come that way?

Are toilets in schools covered by the health & safety legislation about providing single sex facilities? Seems like bogs in schools would be a good place to start. Maybe it is all about being to pee in peace after all...

able to

boatyardblues - schools in England are required by legislation to provide single sex changing rooms and toilets. The problem is that well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) advice has been that children who identify as the opposite sex should be accommodated and able to use the facilities of their choice.

I wish Ofsted would start failing schools who can't understand the difference between sex and gender

The ideal candidate for challenging the Labour Party's illegal policy on AWS and Women's Officer posts would have been the woman who came second to Madigan, as she would have been able to point to direct disadvantage as a result of the LP policy

There will be others.

Is this really the only option though - to find individual cases to illustrate harm?

Because it weakens the impact hugely.

This is about 33 million women and girls formerly recognised as a group who are now erased in law.

And every right that pertained to them removed. Because a right that rests upon your recognition evaporates when your recognition does.

Surely a class action by 'human females without a gender' demonstrates beyond question that this group are oppressed, possessed rights, and now cannot access those rights as they have been reallocated to male and female humans who possess mythical gender.

When the vote was won for women it was won as a class (although not universally at first) not argued for on a case by case basis.

schools in England are required by legislation to provide single sex changing rooms and toilets

The BBC states as fact on an advice page accessed by teens that transgender pupils cannot be 'made to use the wrong toilet'.

link

Barrack - how would you demonstrate harm as a class, though? At the moment I mean

Pratchet - that's because the Beeb has been brainwashed by Mermaids et al doesn't understand the difference between gender and sex, The law is clear that mixed sex facilities are only acceptable if within a single use, lockable cubicle.

I thought you were a teacher foxy? Or have a mixed you up with someone else I’m thinking of from a previous thread?

I’m not a lawyer - but show me the crowdfunder, the March, the people to write to and I will.

A group called Trans Media Action was actually founded with seed funding from the BBC.

I mean seriously. This is the access transactivists have.

I am not a lawyer either (though I do have a close family member who is). I think to prove harm as a class we would have to show that redefining sex in law to include members of the opposite sex has had a negative impact on females as a group. There is plenty of evidence available to illustrate how the GRA and the accompanying changes to legislation has led to the following:

1. Violation of females right to spaces exclusively for the female sex; by allowing males to legally change sex and enter females changing rooms, toilets, gyms, domestic violence shelters, prisons, various support groups, sports, activity groups, lesbian groups, guides, etc.

1. Violation of the right to consent; by allowing males who have a sexual fetish (which involves being referred to as a woman) to legally change sex, which forces females to participate in his fetish, or else be in violation of the law. It needs to be pointed out that these males are not screened out of the process and neither is there any practical way of screening these males out.

1. Violation of right to belief; those of us that do not believe in an inner sense of gender, are being legally forced to adhere to someones else’s belief system, or risk facing criminal prosecution.

1. Inaccurate reporting in the media, i.e. males are being reported as if they females, even when they commit crimes.

1. Inaccurate statistics being reported, for example males being included as if they are females in crime, pay stats, etc., if these males are legally considered women.

All of these violations of females rights as group, have occurred due to the belief that one can change sex, being written into law. I think we should build up a case from this stand point, there is quite a bit of evidence for all of these instances occurring, so shouldn’t be difficult to prove. That is before we even get to the effect it is having on children. All of the guidance/procedures that various bodies/companies etc, have implemented stems from the law that states changing sex is possible and is a protected characteristic. Therefore, with that law in place it is practically impossible for females to retain our basic rights, contrary to what the government may say, particularly since there is no requirement for full surgery (which would make the numbers far lower).