Behind the ruling: how ‘Sex Matters’ is shaping UK policy on trans rights

[BeeSouriante]

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/home-affairs/behind-the-ruling-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-uk-policy-on-trans-rights/

Sadly this is the first article in the UK media that has recognised the connections between the gender critical ideology movement (GCIM) and religious right orgs (mostly Heritage and the ADF), despite it being recognised and acknowledged by orgs and media in Europe and the US.

"The organisation’s true agenda is, I believe, best described as ‘eliminationist’: seeking through legislative bans, data policies, and the curtailing of gender-affirming care to relegate trans people in life and law to their sex at birth and make transitioning so difficult, dangerous or pointless as to functionally eliminate trans people from public life and society"

Spending time on this forum, it's quite clear that many people in the GCIM are eliminationist in their aims (just a glance at the 'do you support transitioning' thread is very eye-opening in this respect).

Do we get a flag as well?

Excellent post

Oh you are funny 🤣

Absolutely. We need an audit of the policies; who wrote them and who signed them off. They need to be held accountable for the mess they created.

As a PP said. The level of misrepresentation about the FWS judgement is huge.

The Supreme Court confirmed that when the Equality Act became law in 2010, Parliament intended that man and women meant biological man and women and that sex meant biological sex. So the law hasn’t changed, the SC has simply blown a hole in the web of lies and obfuscation that has been created by the TRA lobby.

It was recognised by all parties to the case during their arguments that no one without a GRC could have ever claimed to “change sex”. ie their “legal” and biological sex were identical.

The SC also considered the interaction with the Gender Recognition Act in particular the effect of s9(3) which allows the recognition of “certificated sex” granted under the GRA to be overridden by other legislation. This does not need to be an express or overt overriding but can be inferred by context. The SC held that the EA2010 does override s9(1) of the GRA as allowed by s9(3) as some provisions of the EA would be unworkable if “certificated sex” applied rather than biological sex.

NO LAW WAS CHANGED BY THIS JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court simply stated how the existing laws should be correctly interpreted.
Bluntly, Sex Matters and all the Gender Critical people had always been right and the TRA lobbyists had always been wrong.
Trans people were lied to repeatedly by their own side and are now trying to blame GC people for exposing those lies.

People with the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment are rightly protected from discrimination in the EA2010, but that doesn’t equal a carte blanche to erode the rights and protections based on sex or same sex attraction.

eliminationism is the TRAs new long word instead of "literal genocide".

Trans people were lied to repeatedly by their own side and are now trying to blame GC people for exposing those lies.

And not just about this. The whole trans rights movement as currently constructed (by which I mean the movement to demand being treated as interchangeable with the opposite sex without exception, as opposed to a movement to demand being accepted and respected as gender non-confomring members of their own sex, which I'm sure we would all get behind) is at heart a movement demanding that trans people have the right to lie without being exposed as a liar.

Transperbole (thank you PP) has it that trans people are victims, rejected simply because they are trans. Never occurs to them that they are rejected because lying about their sex makes them sexist liars and people don't sexism or being lied to.

💯

and not just a subset of men …. A self-selecting subset of men.

This thread is a good example of someone posting something 'anti GC' and then not bothering to interact with the ensuing discussion.

What has happened on other similar threads is that eventually, after pages of detailed and reasoned argument, some poster loses it and calls the OP stupid or pathetic or casts aspersions on their intellectual faculties or something, and that gives the OP the chance to do the you-are-all-bigots door-slamming thing we are so familiar with.

We obviously haven't reached the required level to trigger the flounce on this thread yet, so no detailed engagement with posts, but no door-slam either.
It's probably a matter of time🙄

Yes, I have seen it used a bit recently. Wu tweeted about it the other day in relation to the Sullivan article in NYTimes.

They have to keep coming up with a new term every time a previous term is shown to be not just hyperbolic but so overused that people cease to react to it. Except to laugh sometimes.

Yes… but in the context of women in the U.K. clarifying and defending their rights, I think it translates as ‘a pile of shit’.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminationism

So here is the Wiki link for those who can be arsed.

The first paragraphs state Eliminationism is the belief that a social group is, in the words of Oklahoma City University School of Law professor Phyllis E. Bernard, "a cancer on the body politic that must be excised—either by separation from the public at large, through censorship or by outright extermination—in order to protect the purity of the nation."[1]
The various forms of eliminationism have included attempts to delete or change the cultural identity of the targeted group, the political disenfranchisement of the group, the creation of ghettos for the group, the enslavement of the group, the segregation of the group, the voter suppression of the group, various forms of Apartheid targeting the group, the deportation of the group, various methods of forced removal and forced marches targeting the group, the creation of concentration camps for the group, the forced sterilization of the group, anti-miscegenation laws targeting the group, the systematic rape of the group, mass murder campaigns targeting the group, and the attempted genocide of the group.

not only can you not hope to make that case, I would go so far as to say (taking just one of the points) that the support for sterilization of trans people comes from Trans Allies.

Do you think that the terf is a slur website shows Eliminationist tendencies.
…. the accusations are admissions spring to mind.

TRA use words like 'eliminationism' because the fantasy can only work if nobody says 'he's a man'.

Once anyone says that the illusion is broken. Being excluded from womens spaces because they are men is TRA constantly being reminded that their fantasy isnt real.

I've said it many times but men use the female sign on the door as "transition".
It's their "transition" portal.

Without it they have nothing.

Hey ho. Just proves how dependent they are on external validation for their beliefs about themselves.

You know, I've just realised that the "you're all mean" door slam exit is pretty much always a female poster. The male ones prefer to igore the many women who disagree with them, patronisingly thank the few who agree, and continue to post pretentious accusations, pontification and misdirection about their own obsessions and their own navels as if we hadn't read and debunked them a hundred times before.

My guess is that the women are replaying the frustration of feeling like they are being ignored and talked down to and just not being able to find the words to be heard because that's our experience much of the time in society. And the men are just ignoring women's voices in the assumption that whatever he thinks is going to have more authority, because that is his.

(How do I know if a poster is male or female? Because the TRA-side women at some point usually say "I'm a cis woman and I don't feel like you do", mention a lovely friend, then disappear in a cloud of sadness and damp hankies, and the men usually say "I'm a trans woman and I'm here to tell you why you are wrong".)

So I'm betting on Bee hanging around for a while. And if Bee does decide to stop giving us such great opportunities to demonstrate why the TRA-style demands being made on behalf of trans people are so flawed and so damaging, Bee won't do a door slam, Bee will just disappear and tell Beeself we aren't all that so bee wasn't that bothered anyway.

GCIM
religious right orgs
eliminationist
...and on...and on...and on...

Jeez.

Just use the right spaces and services for your sex. Like you were always meant to do.

Sex is physical and apparent to everyone with a human body. Gender idiotology is the belief in souls...it's clear which one is extreme and religious.

The pattern is rather obvious when you see it.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread, so not sure if someone else has made the point already.....

@BeeSouriante "to relegate trans people to their sex at birth" No one is relegating anyone. You're either male or female. Maybe we could all join forces together and fight stereotypes such as "females belong in the home" and "only males can fix cars".

Also it's not "sex at birth". It's just sex. Determined in the womb. Unchangeable. Sorry.

If you or your trans identifying friends are looking for someone to blame, I'm afraid there isn't anyone. It's nature.

I agree, and I think it's really important to be able to spot the patterns, e.g. the shifts from 'born in the wrong body' to 'congruence' and from 'TWAW' to ..something slippier, but parallelly 'I'm not a robot I'm biological I say I am a woman therefore I am literally a biological women'...

Also appropriation of common GC phrases like 'cognitive dissonance' - a form of DARVO [deny, attack, reverse victim and offender], but a very childish one, to me it always sounds like an overtired 5 year old saying 'No it's YOUR bedtime YOU put your pyjamas on!'. 'No YOU'RE cognitively dissonant!'

I've spotted one or two reversals like that but 'cognitive dissonance' is the only one I can think of now - any more, so we can start keeping track of them?

I could say 'a new bingo card' but it's a serious subject .. but yeah a new 'reversal' bingo card, if you like...

I think it’s darker than that.

TRAs generally see themselves as part of the “progressive left”. And I reckon they have the basic awareness that “literal genocide” doesn’t sound so good when the progressive left is focused on Israel/Palestine. High chance of someone turning around and noticing that there seems to be a measurable difference between genocides.

Hence the switch to “eliminationism”. Less chance of someone on a protest twigging that the U.K. Supreme Court doesn’t, so far, actually seem to have bombed the limbs off any trans people, so it’s pretty offensive to draw the comparison.

Now I’ve read the Wikipedia page I’m still no wiser how not letting men into women’s toilets is “eliminationist”.

there are (allegedly) five forms of “eliminationism”:

1. Transformation: deleting/changing the cultural identities of people.
2. Repression: systematically limiting the power of the target group through political disenfranchisement
3. Expulsion: removing the undesired group through relocation
4. Contraception, forced sterilization etc
5. Extermination: mass murder or genocide

I don’t see how any of these apply even remotely. Trans people have a strong culture, with which nobody is interfering, but in any case want to be invisible in society (a contradiction I already asked about); they have the same voting rights as every other individual, so 2 doesn’t apply. Nobody is expelling anyone that I can see, the only people sterilizing trans people are they themselves through hormone treatment (and in any case trans is not a heritable condition, so if the plan is to eliminate trans people by sterilizing them it’s not going to work) and nobody is being murdered: if anything the rate of murder of trans people is less than the general population (as long as you’re not a South American sex worker).

Maybe a Wikipedian needs to add a sixth category of eliminationism about not being able to crash the opposite sex bathroom. (I’m sure there’s a pun on “elimination”to be had but I’m not clever enough to find it).

So I’ve read the Wikipedia page, as suggested, and I’m even more confused. How is knowing that a man is not a woman “eliminationist”?

No, there doesn’t.

The only thing i can think of is the sterilisation - which TRAs seem to be in great support for in the form of puberty blockers and medical transition

How very 'feminist' of you, but given that I've already told you my trans status, a bit redundant.

Have you considered reading the article? It's great that finally we're seeing some scrutiny of anti-trans activism.

Also, obviously I can't respond to eleventy zillion replies..half of which are just crap trolling anyway.

To the poster who say "No there isn't", sorry to burst your bubble, but that's really not your decision to make and given the last WEC meeting, I'm hopeful.