The risks of repealing rights... debate

[PurpleOva]

OK, so since the debate in the HoP I have been stewing on what the woman said about what rights trans people already have now, and that a lot of the rhetoric from the gender critical seems to seek to repeal those rights.

Then I thought about what it is I want. Which is basically to protect my sex class. This is of course a protected characteristic, so it's already protected right?

Well, no. Ever since the first person was able to change their birth certificate from male to female, it already encroached on those protections. Because that was the beginning of losing the definition of woman as a sex class.

So, is repealing the rights of trans people what I want? Is that what "we" want?

And what are the risks associated with doing that?

And did allowing people to change their legal status and documentation already repeal the rights of having "sex" as a protected characteristic?

How do we square that peg? Are we too far down the road to start repealing rights now?

That has to hurt, Empress

I can't imagine having put time, effort and trust into them and now having to see them as they are now!

I used to read Spare Rib, so I suppose it would be akin to Rosie Boycott suddenly asking for all women to be SAHMs, to give the men a decent chance!

The Men being the blindingly obvious, biology based human beings, of course!

So, is repealing the rights of trans people what I want? Is that what "we" want?

I want GRA 2004 heavily modified to recognise that some of the legal changes for which it was brought into being have now been achieved so much of it can now be declared redundant. E.g., same-sex marriage; equality of state pension age.

The remainder of GRA 2004 reads mostly like legal fictions. The current crop of GRC-holders will need to be provided with continuity of those legal fictions but they should not be granted to others.

*Define 'men'.

I think we all know what men are. Just like we all know what women are.*

Of course we do. But the way things are going language is becoming meaningless.

if you are not allowed to define 'women' in a meaningful way, then the same applies to 'men'.

That has to hurt, Empress
I can't imagine having put time, effort and trust into them and now having to see them as they are now!

I remember coming out of my house sometime in the early 2000s & seeing a SOME PEOPLE ARE LESBIANS: GET OVER IT poster & it made my day.

If anything I suppose I'm just grateful that I did my coming out 20-odd years ago when Stonewall were still an LGB rights organisation, not a bunch of homophobes.

if you are not allowed to define 'women' in a meaningful way, then the same applies to 'men'.

I don't disagree except that this doesn't seem to have affected men in quite the same way. Men appear to be able to identify other men quite easily - hence transmen not being eligible for the priesthood; inherited rights and gay saunas amongst other things.

Women aren't having any difficulties identifying each other, either. Difference being that men are being allowed their accurate definitions and identifications, whereas women are having them removed.