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?

I know you aren't used to hearing the word no.

But no is a complete sentence. And we are sick of the toddler level arguing that you are a woman because YOU REALLY REALLY REALLY think you are.

You are not.

Sorry.

please feel free to share those studies. Do you yourself think that trans women who have gone through full medical transition, including penis removal, are different to those trans women who self id but do not go through any form of medical transitioning? ( I'm aware the vast majority never have genital surgery)

Not only were GCs responsible for the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, now the GCs are in some way responsible for the UKSC ruling and EHRC guidance! Fantasy Law as well as Fantasy History.

The EHRC guidance is just that - guidance based on a Supreme Court ruling, which is the highest court in the UK and therefore its rulings are..well, supreme.

The Supreme court ruling was not making a new law, it was clarifying an existing law. You're a bit late with the pushback as the existing law has been in effect since 2010.

This is another example of how reality is sticky, and you can't just wish it out of existence.

The EHRC goes FAR beyond the SC ruling. The SC ruling also won't last as it makes the EA incompatibile with the ECHR

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911106

You don't get to say no to other people doing things that don't affect you. We live in a country founded on Liberty. Me using the toilet has literally zero, ZILCH effect on your life.

Readers note:

Women's Rights are not just about safety and concerns about safety.

Women have a right to privacy and dignity from male bodies.

Conveniently, AYoungTransWoman is the poster who tries to turn the conversation back to the idea of whether transwomen are a risk to women.

It suits this poster's agenda to PROMOTE the trope that the debate is that transwomen are potential perverts. Its an attempt to control the narrative to it being all about 'transphobia' and thus women's concerns and complaints are illegitimate. It SERVES them to play the victim role against the evil women.

Except we still retain the right to get changed in a penis and inverted penis free environment for privacy and dignity reasons. Cos Human Rights.

This poster doesn't want to have a conversation about the dignity and privacy of women from males.

We are not ALLOWED this.

Fascinating isn't it, when you can identify propaganda techniques...

Except it does.

It affects my dignity and privacy.

HTH.

(I refer to my previous post).

Me using the toilet has no effect on your privacy and dignity. They're single stalled cubicles.

Says the person demonstrating the legal illiteracy, arguing that they are biologically altered because they've taken hormones and that they are female.

Ok then.

Pats on head.

So why don't you use the cubicles in the men's?

Readers note:

• Most anti-trans people are men. Transphobia is more prevelant amongst men and the right wing.

• Studies show trans inclusion in women's spaces has no effect on safety

• Trans people have human rights too, and are not only not in conflict with women's rights, but are directly aligned

• The other posters in this thread do not believe trans people deserve human rights and do not care about the welfare of trans people against male violence

Because I'm not a man?

I thought you said you had a penis. Women don't have penises.

Not for long!

Sigh....

Women use the women's toilets for multiple reasons. Not just pissing.

You'd know this if you were a woman.

Also, we are back to the circular argument about privacy and dignity and safeguarding being inter connected...

You can argue until you are blue in the face (and probably will). You just sound like Violet Beauregarde.

I'll Sweam and Sweam until I'm sick if I don't get what I want.

Still No.

I have used the women's toilets for more than just a toilet. I have used it to escape men being creepy to me in pubs and clubs.

I wish you well in your experimental treatment and hope that you are fully familiar with the sheer level of complications.

You still will be a man even if you have it removed.

Women aren't humans who have loped off their penis.

Yeah

Men who admit to stealthing are creepy aren't they?

We don't get to escape them by your logic.Thanks for that.

Isn’t it just.

How do you escape men by going in the women's toilets? You've been telling us that any men can just go in there as well, and there's nothing we can do to stop them?

I've waited years for this, it's not experimental it's been done for decades. Trust me I know what I'm getting in to.

They don't follow.

I don't use women's changing rooms currently, and won't until I'm post op.

I'm not sure that is the sort of study that is going to widely prove or disprove anything regards womens risk .... "Massachusetts localities with nondiscrimination laws that protect transgender people’s access to these facilities based on their gender identity were matched with localities without these protections" . ( williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Bathroom-Access-Feb-2025.pdf...do we think the Williams Institute is a neutral organisation that is free from bias?) As we know from this country, having a law that stops biological males from accessing womens spaces doesn't make a difference to some biological males.