ECHR as the next battleground for the rights of women and children

[Ingenieur]

I have started this thread to avoid derailing a previous one.

Original thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4852476-tougher-transgender-guidance-for-schools-is-unlawful-sunak-told?page=1

It was suggested there that the ECHR would be an impediment to rescinding or fundamentally changing the GRA or the gender reassignment parts of the Equality Act. This is on the basis that membership of the European Convention on Human Rights would not permit the unwinding of existing rights, even if it does not force member nations to comply.

I know most of us do not practise law, and even fewer are international or constitutional lawyers, but I'd like to understand more of the nuance surrounding this aspect of our fight.

As a starter for 10, is this even true? Is leaving the ECHR the only solition to unwinding these laws?

Also, looking at the ECHR summary of the Goodwin case, it states the following:

Since there [we]re no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, the Court reache[d] the conclusion that the notion of fair balance inherent in the Convention now tilt[ed] decisively in favour of the applicant.

It is astonishing that a case which overturned a number of previous ECHR Article 8 and Article 12 cases was judged on the basis of public interest, and that no public interest was noted.

Seems like a bit of a mess.

It's a discussion board. A place of exchange

It’s quite funny how these long-winded condescending pairs of posters, whatever pair of names they chance to bear, never, ever understand the basic point that we’re not a hive mind.

you’re contradicting yourselves! No, we’re different people and we sometimes don’t agree. And since we actually think for ourselves instead of learning off a catechism sometimes our thinking evolves over time.

I know you probably didn’t mean it to be but this was funny

Which is no bad way to do a thread. All good

Thatcher used to say the same kind of thing in the 80s. That was the decade that saw over 30 officially recognised acts of terrorism. The very first one of the 80s resulted in the deaths of 3 civilians. Along with the knock-on effects to their families. And of course, would have had a profound effect on any children they had. It was the continuation of terrorist instances on both sides spanning from the 60s into the 90s led to the peace process being started

That process started and continued for a reason

It takes quite a lack of self-awareness to implore that 'this is real children's lives' while glibly dismissing the prospect of a new Troubles in Northern Ireland.

What do you think the lives lost in the Troubles were if not real? Fantasy?

Oh, do please continue; what's that phrase? Showing your arse to the world? Your personal attacks don't mean anything to me as I left the playground a long time ago, but they do paint a picture of yourself and not a flattering one

It's very unbecoming of me, I know.

Oh, do please continue; what's that phrase? Showing your arse to the world? Your personal attacks don't mean anything to me as I left the playground a long time ago, but they do paint a picture of yourself and not a flattering one

What voice are people hearing when they read this stuff? I’m getting Arnold J. Rimmer.

🪨

ok it’s all good, not wanting to get an ahem from mnhq

Robust thread and all that

It’s a big thing, this was inevitable imo you can’t reorder society against biological reality

Invoking fantasy? Lack of self awareness!

Oh dear.

In what way does Goodwin experience sex/gender from the rest of us?

Do we need to keep engaging with these posters? They've said their piece, the point re: Northern Ireland has been noted, and we carry on.

They said the same about Brexit (even down to the details of NI) and it managed to get passed. We have a set of messy human laws and institutions today and we'll have a slightly different set of messy human laws and institutions tomorrow. Nothing is fixed forever aside from chromosomes

Is anyone in the media / public life writing about whether we need to leave the ECHR to repeal the GRA? I've seen a lot over the last year or two re: leaving it to be able to enact deportations, but not in the context of the GRA/gender identity.

Sorry, missed a word.
In what way does Goodwin experience sex/gender differently from the rest of us?

That was a reference to the ruling that is free and available to read and contains all the information you asked for.......

.......and I've done it again, haven't I? I've assumed a level of competence or experience from you and it would appear I was presumptuous in my assumption. My deepest apologies for that

Goodwin. Ruling. Contains the information you were asking for. Relevant to this thread on the ECHR as it's a ruling from the ECHR

I think my synopsis is fairly accurate actually. From the Goodwin judgment:

12. The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1937 and is a post-operative male to female transsexual.
13. The applicant had a tendency to dress as a woman from early childhood and underwent aversion therapy in 1963-64. In the mid-1960s, she was diagnosed as a transsexual. Though she married a woman and they had four children, her conviction was that her “brain sex” did not fit her body. From that time until 1984 she dressed as a man for work but as a woman in her free time. In January 1985, the applicant began treatment in earnest, attending appointments once every three months at the Gender Identity Clinic at the Charing Cross Hospital, which included regular consultations with a psychiatrist as well as on occasion a psychologist. She was prescribed hormone therapy, began attending grooming classes and voice training. Since this time, she has lived fully as a woman. In October 1986, she underwent surgery to shorten her vocal chords. In August 1987, she was accepted on the waiting list for gender re-assignment surgery. In 1990, she underwent gender re-assignment surgery at a National Health Service hospital. Her treatment and surgery was provided for and paid for by the National Health Service.

Dressed 'as a woman', claimed to have a 'lady brain', hormone treatment, 'lived as a woman', genital surgery.

82. ... It is not apparent to the Court that the chromosomal element, amongst all the others, must inevitably take on decisive significance for the purposes of legal attribution of gender identity for transsexuals

The court decided chromosomes don't matter.

I’m trying to discuss a pretty serious implication of what some posters want to do. If you’re not interested in it perhaps you could leave those of us who are to discuss those implications.

No

Are you really invoking the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland as a reason to think things will all be fine if we left the ECHR?

Did you miss the significant disorder a couple of years ago and the lack of devolved government for the past two years?

It seems you are mistaken. This board is Feminism: Sex and gender discussions.

Thank you for point out that this is the board to be even less cavalier about the deaths of women and children on

I thank you for that very helpful correction

edit note: *pointing

Why don't you and Lockee go off and start your own thread then? And the rest of us can keep discussing the actual thread topic here.

Which is the sex class more responsible for violence?

I doubt you’ll find many violent women here. Biological reality yes. But if you’re searching for violence other sites are better.

We will be at Godwin's law shortly, never mind Goodwin.

Which was a Badwin for women.

Boom boom.