Thread removed due to copyright

[Kinsters]

I noticed that a long thread was taken down due to copyright infringements. If I remember correctly the OP copy and pasted a long excert from the article which I assume is the reason why. I'm not sure whether archived links are allowed, I see them often and they go unchallenged. Maybe worth an ask on site stuff.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/labour-promised-lgbt-voters-a-reset-now-many-feel-betrayed-3787433

I would imagine that one of our ploppers reported that specific thread to get it taken down. The comment in the article that "[Trans] voices [are] – so often drowned out" is looking more and more ironic!

Happy to repeat what I said in that thread.

I'm still confused about a culture whose members consider it a human rights violation to be identified as such.

Yes, there were lots of great posts on that thread iirc

..because you're conflating acknowledgement of membership of a group and the inherent risks of being outed in public as part of that group in the middle of a moral panic and when certain, frankly evil individuals (MF) are currently celebrating that hateful and oppressive attitudes have increased. Until the moral panic started, the idea the people can just go change their sex and then be allowed to carry on with their lives was not considered anything remarkable. Hell, when I talk to normal people and explain this stuff, the response is always along the lines of 'well duh, obviously'.

The GRA and article 8 rights underpin this.

the idea the people can just go change their sex was not considered anything remarkable

No, it was regarded as impossible. I'm sorry, BeeSouriante, but it is impossible.

Allowing people to continue their everyday lives is unremarkable, of course, except where "thinking you have changed sex" starts to clash with the needs of that sex. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

The article 8 rights don't overrule everything, Bee, and you know it.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to respect for private and family life, which includes the home, correspondence, and personal information. This right is not absolute and can be interfered with by public authorities under certain circumstances, but only if it's in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for reasons like national security, public safety, or the protection of others.

This right is not absolute
This right can be interfered with by public authorities ( UK government) in accordance to law (Equality Act) for reasons like protection of others (womens dignity, safety and participation in society.

That's very annoying. I had a long post on there that I really won't be able to fully reproduce. I wonder if the OP themself reported the thread because the amount of rational logic was becoming dangerously overwhelming for those who don't like logic?

In summary though, the GRA contains numerous exceptions - although the words "for all purposes" do appear, that's in the context of an Act that has numerous clauses and referemces to the Sex Discrimination Act (now superceded) which can be summed up as "for all purposes except where it actually matters because you are in a context where real actual sex is relevant" When the Sex Discrimination Act was replaced by the Equality Act it was specifically laid out that everything should be universally accessible unless restricted to people with a particular characteristic as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. It is specific in defining that how this relates to sex - the unchangeable characteristic of whether one is male or female - is an entirely separate thing to the characteristic of having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, such that it is not discriminatory for a person to be categorised according to their actual biological sex when sex is important/relevant, whilst confirming that actual discrimination against trans people is obviously totally wrong and illegal.

For a few years, by acting steathily and obfusticating, Stonewall and its allies were successful in pretending that the law is not the law, and convinced numerous public, private and third sector bodies to create policies contrary to the actual law, but conforming to what the law might have been in a alternate reality where women's rights don't matter. It is shameful that so many organisations were duped

Fortunately the SC judgment will drive much of this. No government can be seen to actively oppose the law of the land - no matter how much men demanding access to undressed women insist they should.
It just shows how much damage has been done by society failing to say NO to these people. No you can't trample over other people's rights. No you can't breach the social contract by insisting that women and girls offer up their undressed bodies for you. No you can't gaslight children that their bodies are flawed but a sex change is the cure. Etc.
We should all be judged by how we contribute to society - our families, friends, communities and society in general. Those who continually undermine and take from others are finally being told NO.

Yes, it is reassuring that despite The Tantrum there has been no serious suggestion of amending the Equality Act.

You can't change your sex. you never could. You can't now.

Also - you're parroting the hilarious line that trans identified people pass. They don;t. Like, 99% of the time, don't pass. So trans identified people are already outing themselves by wandering around being 6'8" in a dress or 5'1" and 41KG in a moustache and a hat. They just don't pass and to pretend you do is the biggest lie of all. Quite Orwellian.

This is very very key.

Falkner tried to clearly explain that rights are a balance, you cannot have a situation where everyone has all of their rights all of the time - because rights conflict on occasion and then a compromise has to be sought.

The idea that the right to privacy trumps everything has permeated the TRA world in a way that is not clashing with reality and they are upset.

There is no 3rd sex.....everyone is male or female......let's get back to reality.

Females are at risk from male violence, hence we need women only spaces. Men cannot become women-no matter what they do to their bodies or how they feel in their head.

It is frightening how many supporters of transgender ideology (aka dismantling safeguards for women and children) are men in positions of authority over others.

Sorry, is anyone trying to utter nonsense about people changing their sex? Wouldn’t you be embarrassed to try to claim this?

Ah, well. I hope they don’t fly west or they will fall off this pancake flat earth and have absolutely nowhere to land. Or step on the paving cracks as they will fall into a lava pit and melt.

I'm grateful for the reply.

I still don't see that you've addressed the contradiction at the heart of my question, about the existence of a separate culture whose primary aim is not to be identifiable as in any way separate.

Isn't the the primary goal of a trans person not just to avoid being identified as trans at select times of their choice - but not to be identifiable at any time, to anyone (i.e. to 'pass'). Otherwise, they're just part-time cross-dressers, no?

For instance: in a world where all trans people 'pass' - how could anyone tell who was and who was not supposed to access a trans-only social? What's to stop a non-trans person self-identifying as trans and crashing the event? How could you tell?

In a world where all trans people pass, how can anyone provide trans- services at all?

If I remember correctly the OP copy and pasted a long excert from the article which I assume is the reason why

Not true. I did what i usually do, ie about a couple of paragraphs and then links to urls.

I dont usually post more than 2 paragraphs because commentators then assume that is the whole article and start saying things that have very little to do with the article as a whole.

The real worry is, even if this was as a result of a targetted complaint, it means that probably at least 50% of threads started based on newspaper articles are also vulnerable.

Although in this instance the headline would have been enough!

I think most of us know what will then be said.

But it is worth noting just how much newspapers etc., in terms of coverage are still pumping out the message that TWAW, the most vulnerable, and because of this non of us should pay any attemtion to the Supreme Court.

I wonder what list of laws I would draw up if I had a similar attitude that the law didn't support my view of the world, and my right to impose it on others!

My favourite comment from the last thread (it wasn't mine, I hope someone comes along and claims it, but pretty sure it was from the last thread on this) was "when exactly was the golden age of trans rights?" given that it was apparently so shit in the past and yet now people are claiming trans rights are being "rolled back" and that this is a literal genocide and that there has never been a worse time to be trans in the UK. I paraphrase.

I see our friend Dave is claiming things were perfect in the past, perhaps he can care to elucidate us as to when, exactly, and why trans people and TRAs didn't accept that perfect time to be trans and stop pushing their way into women's rights, spaces and lives, and instead hoisted themselves by their own petard into the situation they now have.

Sorry, my mistake. Thats even more worrying/weirder that it would be deleted based on copyright.

Presumably most journalists / commentators don't object their work being shared as they're not writing biased drivel?

I absolutely agree that there is a moral panic around trans.

This idea that if people are not affirmed as the opposite sex it will lead to suicide is indeed a moral panic and has been used to push through a lot of unpopular policies.

the idea the people can just go change their sex and then be allowed to carry on with their lives was not considered anything remarkable.
Most people thought it was completely crazy: Change sex? LOL, what planet are you on? Sure, if you want to 'live as the opposite sex', then I suppose....

Watching the effort to rewrite history is fascinating.

@BeeSouriante "... Hell, when I talk to normal people and explain this stuff, the response is always along the lines of 'well duh, obviously'."

No normal person has ever said that to you, unless they were lying so as not to hurt your feelings.

That's the problem when people try to be kind - they hide from you the truth about what they really think...

The other problem is that, depending on who Bee is people might actually believe/say that. If Bee is small, effeminate, fully transitioned then it is easy to say "of course you should be welcome, of course you don't make me feel unsafe". Or if the person speaking knows Bee and has trust in his intentions. But when you consider more in depth how to write down coherently and fairly who is welcome and who is not then it quickly becomes clear that anything other than a blanket "all or none" runs into huge problems.

You can't change your sex. You must know some pretty dim people if they think you can. And getting a GRC leaves you being male for the purposes of the EA2010 and always did (it can't work, as the SC pointed out, unless biological sex is meant passim). Exercising your desire for privelege by taking away the rights of other protected groups is not a right.

Or the bears will get them!

I think they like acknowledgement and to be paid royalties tbh.