European Convention on Human Rights

[JellySaurus]

ARTICLE 8 the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 12 the right to marry, are used as to justify the requirement for the UK government to legally recognise people as the opposite sex. (Redundant, now that same-sex marriage is legal.)

8.1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

But why is 8.2, which is not mentioned in Article 12 but appears in similar form in many other Articles, not used as an argument for removing the GRA from our law?

8.2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Enabling men to access female single-sex spaces has resulted in crimes: women and girls being assaulted and raped. Medical transition causes long-term ill-health. Telling children that they may not be the sex they are, or that they have to pretend that somebody is not the sex they are, is immoral as it subverts safeguarding. Multiple court cases have demonstrated that transgenderism illegally restricts the rights and freedoms of others.

Isn’t it time to recognise this?

Errrrrrr

What's the difference between a man who follows a woman in and a transwoman who enters stealthy?

Nothing apart from the sacred cast they think they belong to.

Are you purposefully misunderstanding the point?

If TW are allowed to enter womens spaces, any man can. Therefore, why would TW need the space to avoid male violence?

If any man can enter the women space, and vice versa, what is the point of the single sex space?

You think men get to decide what a woman is.

Rather than women themselves.

Because you are that arrogant.

Newsflash.

The answer is no you don't.

The funny thing is, how do you tell the difference between a transwoman who is decent and a transwoman who is a creep, gets much easier for women.

Clue: the creeps are the ones who talk about stealth and ignore the law by using the ladies. The ones who use a third space are immediately virtue signalling they respect women.

The irony is off the charts.

Are you a new apprentice, brought onto this thread in a work-experience kinda way? 😁

Sometimes you say things that are truer than you think - there actually used to be an invisible barrier at every women's toilet entrance that prevented men from entering. The good men, that is - the good men stayed out so the bad men stood out.
It was called respect.

I mean the man is there to sexually assault / rape someone.

The trans woman is there to piss.

Says the transwoman who wants to stealth.

Sorry I don't trust you. You are happy to lie.

Sexual predators don't follow social conventions.

Are you accusing me of sexual assault based on no other information except that I'm trans?

"every trans woman who disagrees with me is a predator"

Exactly, and the presence of any male in a women's toilet is an immediate cause for concern, as he is not following social conventions, he shouldn't be there because he is not a biological woman, and that's a red flag.

Women shouldn't have to guess why a male is in a women-only space, or what his intentions are, he has already shown an intention to transgress both social convention and the law.

Nice ladies don't say piss.

I'm saying I don't trust ANYONE who lies and thinks it's ok to stealth. Regardless of how they identify or whether they'd actually do it in practice. How the hell do I know what their true intentions are?

If you think it's ok to enter a female space without the consent of every woman - without undue pressure or coercion - which attempts to emotionally blackmail and force team definitely fall under, then you have broken trust and can't be trusted.

It means anything you say cant be trusted.

We have no way of telling the difference. THAT is the problem.

The moment someone fails to respect a boundary and doesn't think they need consent, that's the moment we don't trust because they've demonstrated it through their actions which they are fully responsible for.

Yet again, you reveal more with your words than I think you intend to: women know - it's something that we learn, sometimes to our cost, at an early age - that any man can be an assailant, you don't know until you know..

So any biological male in a women's toilet, whether it's the nice man from down the street, or the local clergyman, or an uncle/grandad/ brother/nephew/son, or indeed you, AYoungTransWoman, has already transgressed by just being there, and that is a red flag.

Getting all defensive by saying 'Are you accusing me of sexual assault..' is a dead giveaway that you do not have the awareness of the possibility of danger that girls and women develop.

Nor, it seems, do transwomen. How do women know the difference? It's too late once they know the intention of the man they have good reason to be wary of. I'm not young any more; I have a much better understanding of what constitutes poor behaviour than I did when I was young. Maybe you will develop more empathy as you age. Blurring women's boundaries is dangerous, and that is something that Queer Theory approves.

There is a room that's closed. There are eight women and one transwoman in it.

Who is the ONLY person in the room who knows they can be sure they are 100% not at risk from a male?

And therein lies the arrogance and the imbalance of power.

Woman look at all males with suspicion. ALL. Even ones who seem nice. Identity doesn't come into it.

This is how we safeguard ourselves.

You do not need to be a predator to be violating my legal rights.

You do not need to be a predator to undermine safeguarding principles and therefore by your completely innocent actions inadvertently put others at risk because you have thought you should have the power to blur boundaries.

ANYONE who doesn't understand these two points do not respect women as equals. ANYONE who does not understand the latter enable predators.

It has NOTHING to do with how you identify.

The key principles of safeguarding are: empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership, and accountability. These principles guide actions to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals, particularly vulnerable adults and children.

Here's a breakdown of each principle:

Empowerment:
Individuals should be supported to make their own decisions and informed choices, ensuring they are in control of their lives and have the ability to protect themselves according to the Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Prevention:
It's crucial to take action to prevent harm from occurring in the first place, rather than simply responding to incidents.

Proportionality:
Any intervention or response to a safeguarding concern should be proportionate to the risk and level of harm involved.

Protection:
Safeguarding measures should ensure that individuals at risk of harm receive the necessary support and protection to keep them safe according to the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE).

Partnership:
Effective safeguarding requires collaboration and partnership working between different agencies, organizations, and communities.

Accountability (People-centred approach):
There should be clear lines of responsibility and accountability for safeguarding practice, ensuring transparency and responsiveness.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to safeguard if you have individuals who think it's ok to act stealthly.

It is the very definition of being anti-safeguarding.

It doesn't matter whether the intention is perfectly innocent. The action of concealment being legitimate IS undermining safeguarding principles.

Women have rights to BOTH safeguarding and privacy and dignity.

Trying to throw shade on this by prattling on about 'are you calling transwomen predators?' is DELIBERATELY trying to erase and forget women's rights to privacy and dignity from males AND fails to acknowledge that well intended idiots can put people at risk when they fail to stick to the complete letter of safeguarding.

Safeguarding is not something that is negotiable, open to consultation or interpretation. The whole point is that it is hard and fast and black and white.

A man is there to assault someone, a transwoman is there to piss

This implies that all transwomen are there ‘to piss’, but some transwomen may be there to commit assault, just like the males without trans identities.

There is no evidence suggesting that transwomen are less likely to commit violence against women and girls than men. If we take incarcerated transwomen, the data there suggests they are more likely than the average male prisoner.

I hear you ,as regards the risks transgender people face, but sadly the risk profile associated with sexual violence comes from being a biological male...this has never just been about who gets to use what toilet ,it's about risk to women and girls in hospital wards, psychiatric institutions, women's refuges.Having worked in mental health and having had a patient raped whilst in NHS care , I've been blindsided by the NHS's capacity to ignore the most basic of risk assessments. rapecrisis.org.uk/news/alarming-scale-of-sexual-violence-and-abuse-on-mental-health-wards/ I don't walk around thinking all men are sexual predators, nor do I think that all trans women are sexual predators. If I recognise that you are part of a minority group that experiences abuse , can you recognise that women have valid concerns for fearing loss of their protected spaces?

I can understand that people are afraid, but I don't believe that justifies discrimination against trans people. We don't make policy based on fear, nor should we.

A cis woman might also be there to commit assault. So might anyone.

We'd far rather not go stealth. But GCs relentless drive to embed discrimination in law has left us with no choice.