Judicial College Misrepresents the law re transgender people

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

The Equal Treatment Bench Book is published by the Judicial College as a guide for judges and others working within the courts. It contains suggestions of measures that can be taken in order to ensure that all who participate in the legal process are able to do so equitably and fairly.

A new edition of the ETBB was published earlier this year. Regrettably, it misrepresents the law on transgender people and goes so far as to imply that deadnaming and misgendering may be criminal acts.

Institutional capture runs deep within the criminal justice system and has an adverse effect at every level.

Our article on the Equal Treatment Bench Book is published today at Conservative Home:

www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/05/radical-the-criminal-justice-system-has-been-thoroughly-captured-by-gender-identity-ideology.html

@soberodent

why is it that these women feel the need to speak out through the medium of conservative institutions that have in the past directly opposed the rights of sexual minorities, people of colour and women? surely working with, supporting and voting for those organisations would be throwing those people under the bus to torture trans people, and if so, why do so many so called feminists still go along with it?

Should I be silent unless and until a left-leaning (how left is left, BTW?) institution is willing to publish me? In this particular case, I was asked to write something and I did. I am equally happy to write articles for left-leaning publications. Last year I was asked to write something for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

I should point out that 'political purity' is not how Parliament and the business of government works. That ALL PARTY Parliamentary Groups exist should be one indication of this.

@sanluca maybe thats a good sign to take a step back and think about why only rabid conservatives agree with u huh

The Conservative Party is currently leading the government. This is a publication aimed at people who vote Tory. I assume Stonewall don't want to work with people who vote Tory either?

The guidance misrepresents the law, lets continue to focus on that apparently unspeakable fact.

why is it that these women feel the need to speak out through the medium of conservative institutions that have in the past directly opposed the rights of sexual minorities, people of colour and women? surely working with, supporting and voting for those organisations would be throwing those people under the bus to torture trans people, and if so, why do so many so called feminists still go along with it?

why is it that these women feel the need to speak out through the medium of conservative institutions that have in the past directly opposed the rights of sexual minorities, people of colour and women? surely working with, supporting and voting for those organisations would be throwing those people under the bus to torture trans people, and if so, why do so many so called feminists still go along with it?

Because they are the elected Goverment, possibly?????

The left wont publish feminist articles, and feminism is for all women. Even the ones you dont like.

Purity spirals will eventually come for you.

The left wont publish feminist articles, and feminism is for all women. Even the ones you dont like.

Purity spirals will eventually come for you.

The left wont publish feminist articles, and feminism is for all women. Even the ones you dont like.

Purity spirals will eventually come for you.

Does the prohibition on association with the wrong political parties only go one way? Is it only valid for us?

Do I have to disagree that grass is green, the earth is round and water wet because some truly evil people also think that?

Away with your bigoted nonsense (yes, bigoted means intolerant of opposing, of even just alternative views). I'm perfectly happy to accept you disagree with me and that some shockingly vile people share your views without deciding that makes you a vile person, too.

We have people from across the political spectrum arguing for and against self-declaration of legal sex and for and against the rights of women and girls to have single-sex provisions and to organise, politically and otherwise, outwith the presence of males.

Women's rights throughout history have been opposed by men from all parties, whatever side of the political divide they fell on. That's because women's rights are not party political but universal human rights. Which in a patriarchy are, of course, opposed by the male sex class. And men can have all kinds of political views while still agreeing that women should stop going on about equality. Of course, each party opposes on different grounds and different issues, but the left-wing male is no less misogynist than his right-wing counterpart. I've met plenty of them, after all.

Does the prohibition on association with the wrong political parties only go one way? Is it only valid for us?

Do I have to disagree that grass is green, the earth is round and water wet because some truly evil people also think that?

Away with your bigoted nonsense (yes, bigoted means intolerant of opposing, of even just alternative views). I'm perfectly happy to accept you disagree with me and that some shockingly vile people share your views without deciding that makes you a vile person, too.

We have people from across the political spectrum arguing for and against self-declaration of legal sex and for and against the rights of women and girls to have single-sex provisions and to organise, politically and otherwise, outwith the presence of males.

Women's rights throughout history have been opposed by men from all parties, whatever side of the political divide they fell on. That's because women's rights are not party political but universal human rights. Which in a patriarchy are, of course, opposed by the male sex class. And men can have all kinds of political views while still agreeing that women should stop going on about equality. Of course, each party opposes on different grounds and different issues, but the left-wing male is no less misogynist than his right-wing counterpart. I've met plenty of them, after all.

Does the prohibition on association with the wrong political parties only go one way? Is it only valid for us?

Do I have to disagree that grass is green, the earth is round and water wet because some truly evil people also think that?

Away with your bigoted nonsense (yes, bigoted means intolerant of opposing, of even just alternative views). I'm perfectly happy to accept you disagree with me and that some shockingly vile people share your views without deciding that makes you a vile person, too.

We have people from across the political spectrum arguing for and against self-declaration of legal sex and for and against the rights of women and girls to have single-sex provisions and to organise, politically and otherwise, outwith the presence of males.

Women's rights throughout history have been opposed by men from all parties, whatever side of the political divide they fell on. That's because women's rights are not party political but universal human rights. Which in a patriarchy are, of course, opposed by the male sex class. And men can have all kinds of political views while still agreeing that women should stop going on about equality. Of course, each party opposes on different grounds and different issues, but the left-wing male is no less misogynist than his right-wing counterpart. I've met plenty of them, after all.

Here we go again with the ludicrous hyperbole torturing trans people - what you mean things like forcing a rape victim to refer to her attacker as she?

What has access to life changing healthcare got to do with the ETBB?

This needs to be judicially reviewed if possible.

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex ok apparently gc brain prevents people from reading for some reason. once more, with feeling everybody!

why do only rabid conservatives agree with your regressive stance on trans rights? why do they take up seemingly "radical feminist" positions only in regards to stripping trans people of their legal rights, their dignity and their access to life-changing healthcare?

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex ok apparently gc brain prevents people from reading for some reason. once more, with feeling everybody!

why do only rabid conservatives agree with your regressive stance on trans rights? why do they take up seemingly "radical feminist" positions only in regards to stripping trans people of their legal rights, their dignity and their access to life-changing healthcare?

Here we go again with the ludicrous hyperbole torturing trans people - what you mean things like forcing a rape victim to refer to her attacker as she? Or perhaps letting rapists into female prisons so they can continue

What has access to life changing healthcare got to do with the ETBB?

Here we go again with the ludicrous hyperbole torturing trans people - what you mean things like forcing a rape victim to refer to her attacker as she?

What has access to life changing healthcare got to do with the ETBB?

[quote soberodent]@sanluca maybe thats a good sign to take a step back and think about why only rabid conservatives agree with u huh[/quote]
So tell me: when a woman is raped by a male, why should she be compelled by a judge to call that male person, who raped her with their penis, 'she'?

The extreme right want to deny women ownership of their body, the left want to deny women their voice. How can you fight for ownership of your body if you have no voice?

What you are missing in your arguments is the fact this fight for womens rights is not about right versus left, it is about intersectional feminism, for all women, across all ages, race, religions and politics. Just not about male transwomen.

But I do agree with you, soberodent, that the religious rights might use the conflict between the demands to be given rights of both sexes versus the existing single sex, to take away some hard won rights for trans people to be treated with the same dignity as others of their sex. If that happens, I will help fight against it.
Unlike transactivists who will only destroy, not help or even leave alone.

This needs to be judicially reviewed if possible.