Trans former judge to take government to ECHR

[CervixSampler]

Trans former judge is taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights over SC ruling

If Strasbourg even hears this case,

If more people remembered Laconia, this thread could have been condenses to two letters 😀

Well at least the crowdfunding will keep the lights on at GLP's snazzy Covent Garden offices for a while.

I meant they had nothing to complain about, not that what they did was OK.

Thanks for this, makes sense.

Yes, it's a lovely, gentle film. With a lot of hope and fun.

if you're eagle eyed, you can spot Crosby getting the words wrong two thirds of the way through and swiftly correcting himself but meeting Danny Kaye's comically accusing eye.

Bad reporting from BBC

“The group had argued that women felt unsafe with trans women using female facilities”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjwvx1z3l2qo

I’m pretty sure that safety would have been mentioned in the context of men, but in the context of the article the judgement is more relevant, which found that defining sex with reference to GRC made the members of the group heterogenous.

I think the thing that really convinced them was the mixed sex lesbian groups.

A fair amount about McCloud’s opinions. No reference at all to lesbian interveners.

Yes they knew. It was the House of Lords I think had that amendment put in. Which makes sense.

But it means in law a trans woman is NOT a woman for all purposes.

In the UK of course.

I don’t think at the time most people saw the ramifications of this legislation, it was a ‘be kind’ to trans. Certainly in Ireland with out GRC law I had no clue it would lead to the mess we are in now. Nor did we understand it would lead to TWAW.

Which is what happens when you make well intentioned gesture law based in sentiment and the Jolly Good Chap principle.

Which is a gift for the exploitation of bad actors who would like to destroy other people's inconvenient equalities and rights.

From the BBC report
but some trans campaigners have argued it did not take into account their view of the complexities of biology

This line of arguing by the transactive lobby angers me: they take examples of people with a medical condition, namely a DSD, to try to brush away sex. How low can they stoop?

Ditto, they now want to claim disabled loos. Don't people with disabilities have enough problems? Where were you transactivists when those with disabilities fought for their rights? That's right, nowhere.

I don’t think at the time most people saw the ramifications of this legislation, it was a ‘be kind’ to trans.

Norman Tebbit for one, did. But of course, he had come from a losing Tory Government so he was by definition a baddy and the right-on Labour party dismissed his concerns.

Yes, transmen and people with DSDs are really getting their moment in the sun. The LGB seem to have been jettisoned for now though.

Those expensive and fugly 'Save the Dolls' t-shirts. How do they help tm and DSD people btw?

In the Irish case it wasn't properly debated at all, at least in the UK you had a debate. But neither country envisioned the mess we are in now. And in all honestly at the time I had no clue what it was, saw no debates on it, and I'd have probably had not much issue with the odd 'true' trans popping into the ladies loo. But never did it occur to me that men would want to change clothes with women, or that they would, for nefarious reasons, want children to transition. Puberty blockers were unknown. Basically none of this was publicly properly discussed. Certainly not the implications for women or children.

Being way beyond that now, my view is that there should be no GRC. It's a legal fiction. You cannot change sex. And this will only ultimately solved by parliamentarians undoing the mess they made.

Yes I agree. It can’t be don’t without harm. Time to repeal bad legislation.

Love Jo Bartosch's articles. She's written this for Unherd

https://archive.ph/0eFZZ

https://unherd.com/newsroom/supreme-court-challenge-is-a-last-howl-from-dying-trans-activism/

Loving the Sweetie analogy.

But neither country envisioned the mess we are in now.

I am going to reiterate - at least one Parliamentarian did anticipate this, and it's clearly recorded in Hansard.

Brilliant article from Jo

“Institutions and even our government caved in, to stop trans activists (metaphorically) pissing on the sofa and chewing their slippers.”

Not that metaphorical tbh!

Yes, re the DSDs, I was heartened to see a doctor on the doctors subreddit responding to the junior BMA’s “sex is too complicated to understand” motion who explained to their medical peers that people with DSDs still have a sex recorded at birth (although obviously it might take more tests to determine which sex it should be), and that the SC ruling obviously still applies to them as they will have the sex registered at birth as their biological sex in terms of the EA 2010.

If people were walking around with no sex at all registered on their birth certificates because doctors genuinely hadn’t been able to work out the best fit based on their medical presentation and refused to , I’m sure this would have been a legal conundrum that needed resolving before the SC ruling.

The NHS website says most babies born with DSDs manage to have their sex determined before the 42 day deadline for registering the birth, so that all checks out - they are still included in the EA and SC ruling as they have a biological sex recorded on their birth certificates just like everyone else.

I'm blaming the media for not reporting unequivocally on what DSDs mean.

I'm sure The Telegraph, The Times or the Mail could publish an article from someone like Emma Hilton, to show how vanishingly rare DSDs are, and the one specific one they keep banging on about, still means the person has a sex.

What their argument actually boils down to it you can't just use chromosomes.

Well no shit!

But a) it doesn't mean the person doesn't have sex, and b) it's irrelevant.

What you really need is a handy little statistic that shows the exact number of people who have the exact DSD that they are gleefully weaponising (I think it's the one with a Y chromosome, but the person looks exactly like a woman). Because, I'm sure you could actually count them, it's so few people.

And an explanation from someone who has it about how it affects their daily life. You know, be a bloody grown-up, and understand that some people have a medical condition. That it's not a bloody game to beat women over the head with.

That's all the light you need, and none of the heat.

Just an adult explanation of what DSDs are, how rare they are and why you shouldn't be using people who have them as a means to access unconsenting women.

The problem are there are so many TRA identifying as ‘intersex’ that you risk getting even more misinformation spread out there. Not least because the BBC have their preferred go to TRA agency for guests on this topic,

Exactly, @Datun- all a journalist would have to do is look at the NHS website and/or ask a competent doctor to explain it.

The fact they’re relying on transactivists as supposed medical experts on obscure DSD conditions that they’ve just commandeered to bolster their own flimsy argument is just lazy and/or biased journalism, especially when the NHS explains it so clearly and publicly.

I think I’m going to start sending the NHS link to publications when I complain about factual inaccuracy/bias on this bit going forward - it’s one thing transactivists saying this stuff, but journalists shouldn’t be blindly parroting it without fact-checking or providing balance.

Swyer's seems to be cureent talking point. Affects 1 in 200,000 people, or 0.0005%.

That's about 350 people in the UK.

If you wanted to be inflammatory, you could point out there are more paedophiles in the UK. Will no one think of them ?

Luckily this isn't the sort of debate that attracts hyperbole, histrionics and hysteria.

Oh yeah...sorry, I didn't think clearly before posting.

In response to Knotty's points about aspects of the perpetrators I referred to - whatever other issues may well have been involved, the fact remains that both of them sought out targets that would be overwhelmingly female.

In the case of Axel Rudakubana, he went out of his way - literally and figuratively - to locate the most female and the most vulnerable target imaginable to act out the consequences of being bullied.
And there were many mass-casualty targets Salman Abedi could have chosen, but he went for one where the victims were likely to be female.

It's femicide, with some additional issues.

Absolutely.

The existence of Swyers doesn’t make sex irrelevant to law.

If sex really were a mystery and a surprise, don’t they think somebody could have made that argument in court by now?