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...

I admit I don't fully understand the article in the OP. Partly I suspect because of the language difference and the same word for sex and gender. Even in English we get confused between them and what 'gender' actually means.

The muddying of the waters on the definitions of certain terms, really needs to be addressed. It doesn't seem uncommon for separate definitions to be given for things like sex, gender and gender identity, only for the terms to later be used interchangeably, all within the same source. I'm only really talking about the UK, but perhaps this confusion (or obfuscation) is worldwide.

Nobody should lose human rights.

It's not a human right to falsify a legal document.

There's nothing more to be said.

It's not a human right to change sex, even if it were possible.

Floral has it.

Lemonade, if you are genuinely willing to learn about the area of risk assessment, and I hope this doesn't seem patronising as a lot of it can seem counter-intuitive, I would suggest you read up on it a bit first?

Good suggestion.

You want me to get learned?
Re-educate me?
Er, still legal to hold different viewpoints.

lemonade

What about the risks to their health not getting called on for routine screening as their records say their gender and not their sex and how about when someone views missing and police release a description. Do you think there is a risk they wont be found in time because everyone's looking for someone else?

And what about in hospital. A ruptured ectopic can be fatal. If drs think they have a male patient that could be a fatal misdiagnosis could it not?

Educate, rather than re-educate. In light of the statement you made demonstrating your understanding of risk assessment. More information in my previous post.
OK, I tried. Going to read posts discussing the OP from now on.

You shouldn’t be able to erase who and what you are. I changed my birth name in my late 20’s. I have two birth certificates, one original and one amended, my new one shows my new name with my original name underneath. Annoying but right.
Trans people should be able to use whatever name they like but it doesn’t change who they are, life can’t be rewritten.

Whatchatalkingabout, Lemonade? Willis late, I better get some work done...
Tried to get somebody to agree, they refused this is demonstrably false.

this is demonstrably false
Go on then.

Whatchatalkingabout, Lemonade? Willis late, I better get some work done..

A birth certificate is a record of a historical event, not a means of providing emotional validation or mental health treatment.

Very well put @TheProdigalKittensReturn

Why are trans women a threat though?

They threats because they are male. See Karen White and the rest of the subjects of transcrimeuk.com/

I can't get on board with all biologically born men are threats.

They are threats because they are male. Almost all males are born with a rape weapon, known as the "penis", and the capacity to force a female to become involuntarily pregnant. Almost all females can become pregnant. The gender identities of the people involved do not alter this biological reality. Women cannot know which males are dangerous, so we are wise to treat all males as though they are dangerous.

Maybe that's where we differ.
It;s discriminatory, where others see it as fine and normal.

It is discriminatory against females to put us at undue risk of forced pregnancy by removing our single-sex spaces and services. It is discriminatory against females to take away our right to refuse to be alone with a male.

They threats because they are male

As I said, I'm not automatically seeing males as always a threat.
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.

As I said, I'm not automatically seeing males as always a threat

That's irrelevant though. The right for sex segregated spaces is to protect females from those males who are a danger, not those who aren't. And as others have pointed out, as we can't tell who is or isn't a threat, the safest solution is to keep all males out.

I suspect you're being deliberately, provocatively obtuse, Lemonade
Why would that be, I wonder?

I suspect you're being deliberately, provocatively obtuse, Lemonade

I'm really not.
I am allowed a different opinion.

Why would that be, I wonder?
Meaning?
Insinuating here for bad intentions as I refuse to fall into line?
Who knows

I'm not automatically seeing males as always a threat.

So do you think all men are good and harmless?

So do you think all men are good and harmless?

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

But until the bad one's start wearing identifying badges we unfortunately can't weed them out in advance.

But until the bad one's start wearing identifying badges we unfortunately can't weed them out in advance

But we're not supposed to mention wearing badges, as someone pointed out upthread!
Maybe just badge them all, that way we'll know to stay alert?

Eh?