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.

I'm not "searching for violence" anywhere. Indeed, that's an incredibly strange accusation to make as I keep arguing against a return of the Troubles

Are you attempting to derail this thread so much it would be deleted? I do not wish for this thread to be deleted. I would much prefer it to stay up

And don’t forget a large part of this is women trying to establish better safeguarding for other women and children in single sex spaces.

You’re better off aiming ire at those men who want access.

Of course you do, so a bunch of saddos somewhere can write a pathetic blog about it.

I’m not derailing it.

I’m discussing the issues. What a bizarre claim.

I was replying to your comment that.

The matter of chromosomes was addressed in Goodwin

What point are you trying to make? Do you even know yourself what point you're trying to make?

Talking about which sex is more responsible for violence on a feminism board is not a derail.

You mean your reply here and then my reply to it, and then your reply to it, which I think replied to? Wherein the nature of discussions are apparent? Discussions being a thing that moves along as one reply to another moves that discussion along?

Just reposting this link that someone posted earlier in the thread.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_gender_identity_eng

It's a synopsis (factsheet) by the ECHR about gender identity cases. I think @LowKeyLockee could learn a lot from it about being concise and clear about ECHR judgments which would be an improvement on posting reams of impenetrable text, much of which is copied straight from the judgments.

Suggesting that everyone has to read in full every single judgment to come out of the court (as well as all the other cases referred to in those judgments) before being qualified to comment on these cases is absurd and unhelpful.

Learning to condense your arguments into a concise and clear form is a skill worth learning.

The poster claimed I was "searching for violence". Do you support that statement or is it factually incorrect? Given that I've argued consistently against a return to the Troubles

It really isn’t a compelling argument. This is utter nonsense. People, please stop giving this one airtime

You mean the precis that continues very little of the detailed, factual elements that people on this board were asking about? A precis by its very nature does not contain the detail needed to explore how the GRA came about, under what Article a right was determined to exist and why, and what that means going forward into other cases?

I mean, if as a non-legal person with no legal expertise you believe that precis to be useful then by all means use it. But as it's akin to a Ladybird book on the Christmas Carol compared to the actual work by Dickens it is perhaps best not to lean on it as the definitive source of information that all should use

I don't agree that Goodwin definitively demolished the argument that chromosomes are relevant to sex determination. They noted that there are some people with DSDs and that therefore it wasn't always clear.

"It is not clear to the court..." means to me that they haven't seen sufficient evidence yet. These days people have had a lot more practice clearly articulating that DSDs are still almost entirely sex-based, that there are many aspects of chromosomal/birth sex which are immutable / highly influential. In the 90s we maybe felt that the science was imminently changing, etc. The conversation has moved on a lot since then and Goodwin was not the last word forever and ever amen.

That was me discussing in public a hypothetical legal scenario with @PlanetJanette over the GRA and its current compatibility with the Convention and ECHR rulings. It was an extension of the discussion PlanetJanette was having. As you've added nothing to it, either in evidenced argument for or against I'm wondering why you felt a need to respond to it

You're right it wasn't the last work by the ECHR on the matter of legal recognition of a change of sex

The last word was R.K. v. Hungary. In June. This year

That was the last issued ruling in a string of rulings that stretch back to Goodwin, have built on Goodwin, and have been considered concurrent with medical and scientific knowledge of the time each individual case was considered

The actual thread topic is the ECHR and repeal of the GRA.

Why are you so determined to shut down discussion of one of the most serious implications of what is being proposed?

Because there are people who really don't like it when others;

a) calmly point out where they're wrong
b) continue to respond to further points made
c) refuse to be intimidated out of being involved in the discussion
and d) refuse to be insulted or demeaned into not taking part in the discussion?

So legally men have lady feels and they think that means they have lady brains and other men feel so sorry for them they amputate their male parts and then pretend this can all be kept secret.

No mention of women, they are not a public interest.

It's definitely more Dickensian that a Christmas Carol.

Well ditto when posters claim ‘derailing’

It doesn’t work.

That’s not a comparison any lawyer would make. People need to stop taking you seriously.

It's clear that men are burning through any goodwill on this at a rapid and escalating rate.

I'm not as concerned about the GRA as others as gender changers are making themselves and their demands staggeringly unpopular all by themselves.

They aren't suddenly going to become reasonable.

🪨

Much of the ECHR case law actually concerns trans men.

Yes, there are men who think they are women because of lady feels, who obviously have no idea what it is to be a woman, but they fancy wearing a woman-costume. Then there are women who hate being women so much that they want to be men.

The whole idea is based on misogyny.

OK, but it rather disproves the posters claim that this is solely about men.