No let's talk about gender critical beliefs in the UK.
Gender critical beliefs in the UK are predominantly left wing. They are founded on the left wing liberal position about human rights as they formed after world war II.
They formed out of the understanding that the state and large organisations and individuals could abuse, harm and exploit people and that certain people were more vulnerable than others so needed particular protections.
That's where the European Court of Human Rights came from.
Within this, it was understood that all people were deserving of rights regardless of whether they had done something wrong. Because it was about the principle of justice and the dangers of injustice. (Remember a feeling of injustice over the settlement from WWI was one of the drivers for WWII).
It also recognised that sometimes there was a need to balance interests because they produced conflict points. The key point was to look at the individual situation and protect life first, prevent harms second and protect dignity next and lastly to respect others.
This crucially was something that didn't happen in the US because it wasn't directly affected by the war in the say way. So post war ideas of rights have developed in different ways in the US and Canada compared to Europe.
There's also the fact that the UK and Europe have a long history of socialism which the US and Canada have had.
In the UK we identified that women face risks from male violence and discrimination. The equality act identifies this, not based on gender roles in society but on the basis of sex. Our laws about rape and sexual violence identify this. Indeed rape explicitly talks about this:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Thats the actual text.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape#:~:text=Rape-,1Rape,reasonably%20believe%20that%20B%20consents.
In theory, I guess you could argue it's legal to rape if you have a bit of paper say you are female because this makes your pronoun her and the law explicitly states 'his penis' not 'her penis' (not even joking here as legal language terms are explicit).
So we recognise sex based violence and sex based protections and dignity as legally bound.
Note the word sex. Not gender. The law explicitly separates sex from gender reassignment as two separate legal characteristics.
We do not talk about 'gender roles' as the basis of gender critical arguments in the UK. We are talking about the upholding of liberal perhaps even lefty law within the UK as it stands and how this has been undermined.
There are also further arguments in terms of the implications for homosexuals because this is defined as same sex attracted. Some see trans advocacy as 'transing away the gay'. If gender replaces sex this affects the rights of gay people most because they effectively lose some of their sex based protections in law.
A lot of the arguments over the last few years in the UK have been about the law not protecting those it was supposed to protect and Stonewall Law which is a misrepresentation of the law and in a nutshell is actually unlawful.
It isn't about the removal of the rights of trans people at all. It's about recognition of the existing previously agreed and understood need for protections for women and why they were created in the first place. Violence against women and the number of male offenders and the percentage of women affected is relevant to this. Also see sport and the creation of womens sport for a similar argument - including why anti doping measures were bought in - which included preventing harms to female competitors.
And yet here we are being lectured by someone who tells us that:
Gender traditionalism is the basis of the gender critical movement. The majority of the GC movement is based on the notion that sexes are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's sex
First of all, it's doing that thing of trying to conflate sex and gender as the same thing and having the same legitimate status from the word go.
No. The legally recognised position is sex. Gender reassignment is something different. This is a current legal position and has been for years. Women don't want to lose existing rights because they been fought for and were designed to help prevent male violence.
Male violence patterns are retained despite transition. This is kinda problematic. And indeed the data on sex offenders and transition is particularly troubling.
The efforts of activists to undermine the protections based on sex in prison isnt a radical one or a traditionalist one. It's a basic safeguarding one to protect human rights and prevent crime. It's not about societal roles.
Then we have actual biology. And how this isn't a 'gender roles'.
The problem with this poster is they keep reading too much American created bollocks and are trying to apply it to the UK against UK laws and established understandings of why women have rights.
They also then try and associate the Christian right politics from America to the UK. Which isn't reflective of the vast majority of gender critical women in the UK who come from liberal and/or left wing socialist backgrounds.
And then have the nerve to talk about internet sources for teenagers to use all.
No wonder young people are fucking confused because they are being taught toot wafflepiffle and then accuse others of 'brainwashing' rather than being able to explain the history, origins and purposes of why the law was created in the UK, it's intentions and why it's wording was and remains relevant and how when talking about this the difference between sex and gender is important.
This isn't about removing the rights of trans people. It's about the upholding the rights of women and homosexuals as well as maintaining the principles of freedom of speech.
Let's talk about the principles of freedom of speech in the UK.
Short abbreviated version: because we recognise that the state can abuse the people (hello EHCR) we recognise that provided you have a legitimate aim and purpose to what you say to prevent the harm of yourself or others, it is legitimate to say whatever you like. This includes the point about Authoritarianism and the importance of saying what you see with your own eyes (thanks George)
Then we have ethics. Medical ethics.
At this point I'm just going to say Mengele and Cass because quite frankly I'm bored of repeating myself to people who still willfully want to represent this as a 'culture war' rather than a ram raid attempt to slash and grab existing women's rights and homosexual rights.
The political bullshit in the US is marred by a whole load of other stuff. But above all it's not relevant to English Law!
Anyway as you were. People defending the status quo as outlined by parliament in various legal acts are not who you reasonably describe as 'brainwashed' rather than spouting toot toot wafflepiffle.