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...

Right there.

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

According to Lisak and Miller (2002), 6% of men are rapists.

If I offered you a bowl of 100 M&Ms but 6 were injected with ricin poison, would you dare to eat even one? If I called you unreasonable for refusing and pointed out that most of the M&Ms are not poisoned and argued that you were being unfair to the 94 harmless M&Ms, would you consider my argument unhelpful and unreasonable? Or would you concur that "NAM&MsALT" and tuck in?

It does not require for most men to be rapists for women to fear all men. It only requires a minority of men to be rapists and be indistinguishable from the others. "They're all out to get [rape] us" is a gross misrepresentation of the radical feminist stance.

'? 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 must have missed that. It's s long thread. Can you tell me time/ date pls so I can take a look?

And it's not all about you.

Plenty of women would go back for a drink with women but not men. You have stated this is discrimination against men.

Did you read the link about the yazidi women yet lemonade?

Will you be writing to your MP to change the definition of rape in the UK and to the UN to remove the concept of rape as a weapon of war?

It;s discriminatory, where others see it as fine and normal.

In terms of me, personally, treating all men as a potential threat:

1. My Article 8, 10, and 11 human rights mean that I don't even have to give a man the time of day if I don't wish to (Art 10), much less be his friend (Art 11) or allow him into my home (Art 8). I do not violate men's Art 16 rights nor any part of the Equality Act 2010 by refusing to associate with men, because my life is not a public service (e.g. a service provided by the council or an NHS trust).
2. Even if Articles 8, 10, and 11 mysteriously disappeared, Art 4 prohibits me from being compelled to provide anything to men.
3. Even if Art 4 disappeared as well, EqA2010 allows for sex-based discrimination, e.g. provision of single-sex services or all-women shortlists, where it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". Preventing men from raping me is a legitimate aim and denying men my acquaintanceship is a proportionate means of achieving that. Contrary to what incels say, no one ever died from not having a girlfriend.

In terms of provision of single-sex services:
EqA2010 allows for sex-based discrimination, e.g. provision of single-sex services or all-women shortlists, where it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". Preventing men and boys from raping women and girls is a legitimate aim and provisioning single-sex services is a proportionate means of achieving that.

Well said bd67th

Birth certificates should never be changed unless there is an error. Having a belief that you are ‘born in the wrong body’ should not be a recognised error that leads to this change.

As far as policing who is a ‘good’ transwoman vs who is a ‘bad’ transwoman for using female only spaces, by expanding the ‘bandwidth’ of the term transgender, it has become clear that this is now new territory. This excuse that ‘I have used the ladies since my transition’ no longer is valid.

Because this additional ‘bandwidth’ means that women now feel increased risk when entering a toilet or a changing room. Women keep being told that their discomfort of being in a female only space with someone they know or perceive to be male is transphobic. It needs to be ignored even if that person presents as a male. And this is in an era when the incidence of rape and violence against women is still far too high, with prosecution for rape being so very, very low.

I feel there has never been a worse time for women’s security in western countries in 50 years. Yet, in almost the same breathe, women are told to ignore any fear because someone presents as a female. (They may even have estrogen which magically saps away penis power and any male biological advantage of build and musculature as well, don’t you know?)

Just because some women think it is ok, doesn’t mean they have the right to take away the security, privacy and right of dignity of all women. And male born people should not have the right to ‘open up female spaces’ either. Just no!

Exactly Wines!

I'm free to disagree.

Yes, but generally, for a discussion, you'd explain why - not just stating the same thing, and saying you're free to disagree. Makes it hard to discuss if you don't like people putting forward their arguments, and also won't expand on yours

Birth certificates should never be changed unless there is an error. Having a belief that you are ‘born in the wrong body’ should not be a recognised error that leads to this change.

In Hungary, changing your name changes your birth certificate - I linked a way back. No-one has the right to change their name at all, but you can apply to a government department to do so (because of marriage - always got to signal who the women belong to! - or to make your name sound more Hungarian are given as examples of suitable reasons).

Not allowing people to change the sex on their birth certificate seems completely reasonable, and not discrimination, as no-one can do that.

If a person who says they're trans is also not being able to change their name, when other people with similar reasons are, then perhaps it is discrimination.

Bd67th, I think the single sex provision is not primarily about preventing rape. I understand it's about ensuring that women can fully participate in life the same as men. Going swimming, shopping, to the theatre.

So it doesn't matter if there is a risk of rape in a shared facility, what matters is will it being shared reduce women's use of the facility?. Women may not use it because of fears of rape, or just because they feel uncomfortable, or because it reminds them of a past trauma or because they fear it will be dirty, because it's against their religion, the reason they don't use it is irrelevant. If for any reason making the facility shared reduces female participation in some aspects of life is sufficient reason to keep it single sex

I only mention it because i prefer to take the focus away from the "all men are rapists, you are accusing us of being rapists"

It's totally focussed on women

To summarise where the thread ended up: risk assessment of groups is discriminatory and therefore wrong because you are assessing someone who might mean no harm.

I don't think the person who asserted it believes it but has been an effective derail.

by expanding the ‘bandwidth’ of the term transgender, it has become clear that this is now new territory. This excuse that ‘I have used the ladies since my transition’ no longer is valid.

This is something we understand instinctively but doesn't get aired as much as it should. The rules have changed. The people now seeking access to women's single sex spaces are different. They are not the quiet transsexuals who women have been politely ignoring in women's toilets for years. This new bunch, taken collectively, are often aggressive and, if how they talk about their demands is any indicator, often seem to hate women.

Pathetic.* For having a different opinion?*

You are welcome to have an opinion, just like everyone else. What you are not welcome to do is put words into my mouth.

Nobody here has said that "all males are a danger"...

what matters is will it being shared reduce women's use of the facility?

This is an extremely good point I don't remember seeing before.

Single sex toilets are about equality of opportunity.

So, yeah, pathetic.

Sorry, not toilets necessarily - single sex facilities and schemes in general.

I don't think the person who asserted it believes it but has been an effective derail.

I always think these threads are useful. The same sort of people assert the same sort of things with the same sort of intention to derail (almost as if it’s the same person ) but there are plenty of lurkers who read these threads and just see how batshit and illogical counter arguments are (or lack thereof). The intention may be to derail or be determined to hold a different opinion just to be contrary, but the inability to explain shines bright for others who are watching.

Sorry, not toilets necessarily - single sex facilities and schemes in general.

The reduction in the availability to females of single sex spaces, employment opportunities and protections, education opportunities and sports as set aside to encourage women’s participation and remove any impediments are constantly discussed on these boards. And this discussion is constantly deemed phobic.

Of course, women get upset when politicians say that 50% men and 50% transwomen on a committee / board or in the work place is ok by them! Of course, women get angry when male bodied people take girls and women’s positions in sports, it is indeniably unfair.

Thanks for sharing the link, TreestumpsAndTrampolines. The process sounds fairly sensible and straightforward to me, although the information is from 2002 so a lot could have changed since then.

Initially I thought it was odd to have to reissue a birth certificate simply for a name change, but it seems to be a logical way to handle the administration around a person's identity (the real type, not the subjective one).

As I understand it from that link, your birth certificate is a very important document of your identification which all other identity documents rely on. The personal information across all identity documents must be consistent. This is sensible because it makes administration easier and probably reduces the chances of dodgy individuals using different aliases and personas.

There are a limited number of reasons to justify an official name change and this is evaluated on a case by case basis. Again, overall this seems sensible to me.

Marriage is the most common reason for officially changing one's name.

At present, only women are allowed to change their name upon marriage, by taking their husband's family name; upcoming legislative changes are expected to allow men to change their names upon marriage and take their wife's family name.

I wonder if this has changed since 2002 to allow men to take their wives' surname. Also, Hungary has same-sex partnerships (not marriage). Are people in same-sex partnerships allowed to take on their partner's surname? I would hope so, otherwise it's discriminatory towards LGB people.

The processing of an application to change a person's name includes a background check for possible criminal records, outstanding commitments, etc., as a change of name should not be used to hide a criminal past or avoid debts or other outstanding commitments.

This is really, really good! We've seen here in the UK certain individuals use name changes and special status as a minority group to hide their dodgy backgrounds. I don't think people with criminal backgrounds should automatically have the right to change their names and have their previous names legally sealed so no one can access them in the interests of the public.

All cases where a change of name is requested are evaluated on an individual basis, and requests have to be well-founded.

Many people who do not like their original name opt to use a different first name on an everyday basis, without applying for a change of name or after having an application for a change of name rejected. In such cases, persons are advised to ensure that any official paperwork does use their original, legal name, and not an assumed one.

I don't know if being trans is officially viewed as a valid reason for a name change under the Hungarian system. It would appear from the above that simply not liking your original name might not be a sufficient reason for your application to be accepted. However, people can still use a different first name on a day-to-day basis as long as they ensure their correct, legal name is used on official documentation.
That doesn't sound discriminatory to me, although cumbersome. If people in general were allowed to change their legal name simply because they didn't like it, but only trans people were denied the ability to do this, then it would be discrimination. If a change of name for such reasons is not allowed for anyone, then it's not something that's being denied to a specific category of individuals.

I don't know how this affects Naturalised citizens who won't have a Hungarian birth certificate.

* ..there are plenty of lurkers who read these threads and just see how batshit and illogical counter arguments are*..

Excellent point notbad - is what the last post was meant to say.

(I've had my coffee - there's no excuse!)

... Do we just stay single forever...

No. That would be really stupid.

Anyway I thought we were talking about keeping men out of single sex spaces, not dating FFS!