GC and the extreme right etc etc

[lionheart]

In case you were wondering ...

transsafety.network/posts/gcs-and-the-right/

'In an unfortunate development, in the last few months we have seen a rapid increase in the rate at which practical crossovers are happening between so-called "Gender Critical" feminist groups (which seek to abolish transition healthcare and trans civil rights) and the traditional far right.'

JKR knew that surveys show that the general population thought the definition of trans person was someone who had had bottom surgery.

People's opinions on access to women and children changes dramatically when they discover that a fully male bodied person can be legally female.

She wasn't saying people should be made to hack their bodies.

@CorvusPurpureus

Bigotry

If the GRA were to be repealed - not something I am personally campaigning for or bothered about, really, although I do feel it's based on dubious & outdated premises - what trans rights do you believe would be lost? It seems a central plank of your argument is that GC people are campaigning for its repeal.

I would rather it become gradually obsolete, tbh, because I don't believe it actually does much for trans people. A very small proportion of trans people seem to want to avail themselves of a GRC, for example. So it seems a bit unclear to me how much it's valued, & to what extent trans people feel it's of use to them? Happy to listen to why you feel its retention is important & necessary.

We should be focusing on allowing everyone to crack on with their lives peacefully & express themselves however they like, IMO.

Whilst staunchly defending the rights of women, which do affect 51% of the human race, after all.

It's a law which, for all it's flaws, was put in place after the ECHR ruled that the U.K.'s excuses for not recognising trans people's right to exist from 1771 to 2004 were unacceptable.

I've seen that people claim it goes further that was required by the case, but having read it myself, I'm unconvinced by this. It seems, to my reading, to barely cover the requirements of the judgement.

It doesn't create 'new' human rights; it represents the fact that the existing right to a Private and Family Life for trans people had been unlawfully restricted for decades.

Removing it, without replacement, means that trans people's human rights will, once again be trampled on because that's what the court ruled had been happening in the UK for the proceeding 33 years.

This isn't some 'my human rights are different than yours' argument. This is a law that was put in place to directly address human rights abuses in the U.K. which only existed so some toff could avoid the costs involved in a divorce by lying about the woman he married.

(I'm not sure whether being angry at a toff being a deceitful little shit in order to avoid a divorce settlement is actually relevant but still think it's terrible so I'm saying it.)

The reason all this matters today, is that the law per Corbett v Corbett is close to the law that GCs are claiming today. It's even more odd to me that GC campaigners go further (Corbett never applied to toilets, for example) than this historical anomaly from 50 years ago.

Seriously; trans people have had the right to these spaces longer than I've been alive

No they haven't. Because literally anyone can define themselves as "trans" according to Stonewall. Please define the term "trans people". Do you mean transsexual people, who've had SRS, or are on a treatment pathway to do so?

JKR knew that surveys show that the general population thought the definition of trans person was someone who had had bottom surgery.

People's opinions on access to women and children changes dramatically when they discover that a fully male bodied person can be legally female.

Yes. They do. As I demonstrated earlier and bigotry hasn't deigned to address.

@sanluca

A cis woman was lied to in order to falsely obtain consent for an invasive and personal examination to 'prove' her sex.

Isn't a cheek swab enough to prove your sex? No idea who you are referring to btw.

I was referring to Caster Semenya. Her comment on what she went through is heartbreaking:

"I have been subjected to unwarranted and invasive scrutiny of the most intimate and private details of my being … [which has] infringed on not only my rights as an athlete but also my fundamental and human rights including my rights to dignity and privacy."

Full story and other examples are here:
www.hrw.org/report/2020/12/04/theyre-chasing-us-away-sport/human-rights-violations-sex-testing-elite-women#

For the avoidance of doubt, Caster Semenya is a cis woman, AFAB and I think any claims that she's somehow 'not valid' as a result of being forced to go through testing which her white competitors weren't is fundamentally grounded in racism.

That's interesting, @bigotryisbad - I'd assumed equal marriage rights had basically covered the shortfall in previous legislation. So which part of the right to a family life etc, specifically, would be affected?

From that linked page

On the evangelical and fundamentalist group the signatories include:

Heritage Foundation - who were profiled by Southern Poverty Law Centre's HateWatch for their anti-LGBT lobbying and close ties to the Trump Administration.

Here is a chat Sam Brinton had with the Heritage Foundation.

www.heritage.org/nuclear-energy/commentary/liberty-justice-all-conversation-sam-brinton-deep-isolation-and-the

By association Sam Brinton is a right wing fundamentalist.

Just look at how much attention the UK far right had paid to grooming gangs

Let's look at the attention the U.K. left paid to grooming gangs.

Why do you want women to lose their right to fair participation in sport? Anyone can see that the trans women sportspeople currently competing in women's competitions have a physical advantage. Why should women accept that?

For the avoidance of doubt, Caster Semenya is a cis woman, AFAB and I think any claims that she's somehow 'not valid' as a result of being forced to go through testing which her white competitors weren't is fundamentally grounded in racism.

Oh really?

For the avoidance of doubt, Caster Semenya is a cis woman, AFAB

I don't think this is known, or indeed, true. For the avoidance of doubt. Plus, it isn't right to call a person with a disorder of sex development "cis". It's completely crass and thoughtless, even by the standards of people using intersex conditions to prop up trans ideology.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Seriously; trans people have had the right to these spaces longer than I've been alive

No they haven't. Because literally anyone can define themselves as "trans" according to Stonewall. Please define the term "trans people". Do you mean transsexual people, who've had SRS, or are on a treatment pathway to do so?

My comment referred to those who are protected by the s.7 Protected Characteristic of the Equality Act 2007.

As I have said, I'm not here to call for new rights; just for the protection of trans people's existing rights

@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog

Why do you want women to lose their right to fair participation in sport? Anyone can see that the trans women sportspeople currently competing in women's competitions have a physical advantage. Why should women accept that?

I've repeatedly stated that I'm not saying this at all.

If you'd like to address something I've actually said; go ahead.

@AtTheDickensDesk

That's interesting, *@bigotryisbad* - I'd assumed equal marriage rights had basically covered the shortfall in previous legislation. So which part of the right to a family life etc, specifically, would be affected?

No; reading the case shows that it was a lot more complex than just equal marriage.

It's really interesting and the ECHR has some basic guides explaining the whole history of it.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

JKR knew that surveys show that the general population thought the definition of trans person was someone who had had bottom surgery.

People's opinions on access to women and children changes dramatically when they discover that a fully male bodied person can be legally female.

Yes. They do. As I demonstrated earlier and bigotry hasn't deigned to address.

If 16:31 wasn't sufficient for you then I don't know what else I can say.

It's a law which, for all it's flaws, was put in place after the ECHR ruled that the U.K.'s excuses for not recognising trans people's right to exist from 1771 to 2004 were unacceptable.

If trans people can only' exist' with the GRA, then how come the majority of trans people don't have a GRC?

@bigotryisbad - you made a really intriguing point about repealing the GRA, could you respond to my question? I know there're a lot of people engaging with you but I don't think anyone wants trans people to lose any universal human rights, and I'm open to being convinced if you can cite consequences that I wasn't familiar with.

Oops, cross-posted. So what are they, briefly?

A key point there being that unless by doing so they would be unable to provide that service to other service users, if other service users who should reasonably expect a single sex space or service to be exactly that and are unable to access it if it is not then trans people can be quite legally and legitimately be excluded.

In other words - trans people have no automatic right to access single sex facilities, spaces or services which are not designated for the SEX they are.

If you'd like to address something I've actually said; go ahead.

You said Casta Semenya is a Cis woman, but CS has XY chromosomes. The case is very sad and it must be hard for CS when they were raised female, but they don't have a human right to compete in women's sport.

All this 'far right' crap. Personally I am disgusted at how many 'left wing kind and compassionate' people are willing to throw women under the bus in order to be on 'the right side of history'.

What it boils down to is really one question: do women have a right to certain single sex spaces and provision? Yes or no?

@AtTheDickensDesk

Oops, cross-posted. So what are they, briefly?

I really would recommend the EHRC history on this as there's so much history I wouldn't know where to start.

There's also been a new case since I last looked, apparently; it doesn't seem to change anything I've said.

www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Gender_identity_eng.pdf

just for the protection of trans people's existing rights

First from that image:
It's case by case, not person by person

And whereas you may be wanting to "just protect existing rights", that's very much not what the loudest trans advocates are calling for

They are violently and aggressively pushing for the erasure of any exceptions allowed under the EA, such as provision of single sex places, allowed on the basis of the protected characteristic sex.

It's disingenuous to pretend this isn't happening

And as I've pointed out before, one of the other exceptions allowed under the EA, is for insurance contracts based on risk based assessments
The patriarchy soon draws a line if you start to effect their profits

There would be much less conflict if the appropriation and colonisation of women's spaces, services and sports was not the goal. Cannot think of another movement which has sought to move in and redefine reality, then impose it on other traditionally marginalised groups - and then have the nerve to call it a movement for human rights.

This 👆

Redefining reality is central to this ideology

Transwomen can't possibly share the same patterns of criminality as other males because it doesn't suit the narrative, so just lie about it.
Transwomen can't be bigger, stronger, faster etc than all females because it doesn't fit the narrative, so just lie about it.
Transwomen aren't members of the male sex because it doesn't suit the narrative , so just lie about it an throw in some totally irrelevant data about people with VSD and pretend there could be more than two sexes.

@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog

If you'd like to address something I've actually said; go ahead.

You said Casta Semenya is a Cis woman, but CS has XY chromosomes. The case is very sad and it must be hard for CS when they were raised female, but they don't have a human right to compete in women's sport.

When I looked into this, I found out that having XY chromosomes doesn't stop you being a mother and giving birth to children:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

At that point; I don't know what counts as 'being a woman' but being AFAB, growing up as a girl and living your life as a woman seems like a fairly solid start. I certainly do not think it'd be right for me to tell someone they're "not a woman" without a lot more thought than this thread seems to be prepared to give.

I'm not going to respond to this further as it's dragging a long way away from the point.