Hungary votes to end legal recognition of transgender people

[Lamahaha]

nationalfile.com/hungary-votes-134-56-to-end-legal-recognition-of-trans-people/?fbclid=IwAR2XMJp7yzVMt9sh4QDOX69znivEA43eJhcSDVlm-zsMaikbANtXxnhd_uo

The amendment would recognize “sex at birth,” making it impossible to change ones gender throughout the course of their life.

On the proposed draft law, Human Rights Watch wrote:

The proposed amendment to the Registry Act would include a clarification regarding the word “nem,” which in Hungarian can mean both “sex” and “gender,” to specifically refer to the sex at birth (“szuletesi nem”) as “biological sex based on primary sex characteristics and chromosomes.” According to the draft bill, the birth sex, once recorded, cannot be amended.

It's the correct vote, but this government is otherwise authoritarian, neo-fascist, against minorities, pretty awful.

Apparently the TRA's are already planning a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the new law violates European human rights case law...

Going back to the OP.

Yes, Hungary seems problematic at the moment.

So does the USA.

So does the UK.

I agree with Hungary about retaining birth records as fact. Men cannot subsequently become women, nor vice versa.

Maybe just badge them all, that way we'll know to stay alert?

Men don't need to wear badges to let us know they're men. We can tell.

Men don't need to wear badges to let us know they're men. We can tell.

Yessss, but that doesn't mean some don't want them all labelled as such just in case bad, does it?

No, but I don't default think all bad need to be stepped away from.

I have no idea what this means.

Yessss, but that doesn't mean some don't want them all labelled as such just in case bad, does it?

Your posts don't seem to be making a lot of sense at the moment.

Male violence is the greatest human rights crisis the world has ever known.
10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

Your posts don't seem to be making a lot of sense at the moment

Why?
For clarity, I meant some would want them (men that is) all clearly labelled as they could be a threat.
As they're men.
Therefore automatically a threat just because they're men.
And now some made up rules are being thrown about lol

There is no clarity there, you've completely missed the point again

It's laughable. That fact that we want to keep female only spaces to protect from the few men who are a danger, somehow means we must fear all men.

Yawn all you like.
People are free to think that if you're a woman, we should see always see men as a threat as dominant, more powerful, stronger or whatever.
Label them as such as how do we know which isn't out to get us and which one isn''t? Default they're all bad as we can't know from looking.
I'm free to disagree.

No men being registered as "women"

Sounds good to me.

No more men lying about physical sex and lah-lah "gender identity" - to the detriment of women.

I'm free to disagree.
So you think all men are good and they're all totally harmless? Have I understood you correctly?

So you think all men are good and they're all totally harmless?

Nope, try reading my posts again.
I said I don't come from a default point of thinking as a class they're all out to get us, and are violent - doesn't mean I don't think that they're all automatically good.

:Not aimed at you specifically, but where does one's head have to be to see a penis as a rape weapon?
What a disgusting term.'

Some links that I doubt you'll look at. You need to understand though, what you are saying with these glib comments is dismissing the immense suffering, right now and through history, of women, children and men, all over the world. With women and female children the majority of victims.

In UK law rape is defined as :

'A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.'

Take it up with your MP if you think this is wrong.

Rape as a weapon of war
Wiki
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

V long link to un sorry
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/Backgrounder%2520Sexual%2520Violence%25202014.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjrgb365M3pAhXCuHEKHc0QDKQQFjAPegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3OqL7ay2j2mSryU-xyMhY6" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/Backgrounder%2520Sexual%2520Violence%25202014.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjrgb365M3pAhXCuHEKHc0QDKQQFjAPegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3OqL7ay2j2mSryU-xyMhY6

where does one's head have to be to see a penis as a rape weapon?

One's head need not be that of a traumatised and often-suicidal victim of rape and childhood sexual assault in order to recognise that a penis can be used as a weapon; simply applying a little logic should allow you to realise that. Having my first sexual encounter be at the age of eight, forced upon me in a mixed-sex changing room, did help me to reach that realisation faster.

You need to lobby the UN about their views on rape as a weapon of war, as well.

Do you see? That the things you say to get your particular view across. Show an utter disregard, or ignorance of, massive global issues that cause harm every day. Not the sort of harm that comes from being misgendered. But the sort of harm that results in death, forced birth, sex slavery and so on.

When you read about the yaxidi women taken by Isis, do you think, hmm, this view of the penis as being instrumental in rape is all wrong. Or, do you not read of them at all?

Yazidi.

Bloody autocorrect.

Nope, try reading my posts again.
I've already said that I find many of your posts difficult to understand. I've read some of them several times and I still can't work out what you mean.

I said I don't come from a default point of thinking as a class they're all out to get us, and are violent - doesn't mean I don't think that they're all automatically good.

Lots of negatives there. So if it doesn't mean that you don't think they're all good, it means that you do think they're all good. Is that right?

OK - plainer English for anyone who doesn't understand.
Some men bad
Some men good.
Some think that means we have to be scared or wary of all men
Some don't.

No, but I don't default think all bad need to be stepped away from.

How am I or any other woman or girl supposed to tell the difference between the bad males and the good ones? At eight, two older boys taught me that not all men and boys can be trusted and that I will not always be able to tell the difference between those who can be trusted and those who cannot. Now you are telling me that I should unlearn that lesson because I might hurt men's feelings. I care a lot about my safety than about men's feelings and decent men recognise and respect this. The presumption of innocence is a legal principle to prevent the innocent from being jailed: it is not an excuse to remove women's right to have boundaries and privacy and safety; it is not an excuse to gaslight women and girls who feel unsafe around men and boys; and it is not an excuse to pressure women and girls into suppressing their instincts to avoid potential predators.

As shinyfootball said, you are being glib and dismissing the very real fear and pain and trauma that women and girls across the world are enduring right now because of the actions of violent entitled men and boys. You are dismissing the very real risk to women and girls posed by predatory men and boys. You are dismissing the very real harm that men and boys can do with their penises.

Lemonade has not answered the post as to whether it's discriminatory for a woman to not go for a few drinks at someone's house after the pub with 4 men she didn't know that well, when she would with 4 women.

Essentially the idea is women should trust all men all the time until after it goes wrong. Because if she doesn't trust them the same as women she's a bigot.

We all know the first question everyone asks when a woman goes off with a group of men she didn't know well and something goes wrong. Is. Why did she do that?

I don't think lemonade will be giving any sensible answers, somehow.

Some men bad some men good.

Is a ridiculous over simplification.

In times of war, or other circumstances 'good men' commit rape.

People are not good/ bad. Are you religious maybe?

For info on how normal men can and do commit unspeakable crimes under different circs. Maybe do some reading.

When she would with 4 women?
You what? My post clearly said I wouldn't go off with any 4 strangers I didn't know, whether they be men or female so please get your facts right before quoting me?

'I can't get on board with all biologically born men are threats.
Maybe that's where we differ.
It;s discriminatory, where others see it as fine and normal.'

Some men bad
Some men good.

So when we see a man we don't know, how do we know which category they are in?