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?

It's not 'obsessed weirdos on the internet', it's the vast majority of the British public. Fortunately.

He also thinks there is surgery that will give him the primary sex characteristics of a woman, but he has not told us what operations achieve this. The surgery he thinks he understands will give him only, at best, the appearance of women's secondary sex characteristics.

It is never wise to trust the words of the yeswomen you have surrounded yourself with.

That is not the way the rest of the world will see you.

General 'you', BTW - it's good advice for anyone. The same applies to yesmen, too.

The law will one day change, and we'll celebrate like we did the last time the LGBTQ+ community faced attacked from reactionaries.

Women who are defending their legal rights to safeguarding, privacy and dignity are not over obsessed weirdos.

It's irrelevant what your mum and best mate think. If they think you should break the law and drink drive, should you do it?

The answer is still no.

It's not a crime for me to use the toilet omg

There is some truth in that. Neither you nor I will ever experience the fear of being made pregnant by a man against our will.

Yeah, that, of course.

Yet again, Operation Let AYoungTransWoman Speak is paying dividends:
useful confirmation here that 'third spaces' [actually fourth spaces, the accessible toilet is the third space] may be a waste of time, space and money, transwomen don't want them and insist on using the women's toilet because they 'are women'.

As a member of the L part of that 'community' [nobody consulted us about tacking on the T part - different community, different identity, different issues] the reactionaries attacking us are the trans people who appropriate our identity, disregard our sexual preferences, and exclude us if we don't play along with men being lesbians.
I'll celebrate when that changes.

This thread, and many others, make it abundantly clear that you using female only provision negatively affects a significant number of woman.

The country is founded on liberty but laws that constrain freedoms are in place to protect the rights of others.

This boils down to: A many females object to males using single sex provision for females. Despite this, and despite the SC ruling, you - trans identifying male - choose to use them and try and justify this by stating/ believing: you are not a man, your family and friends say it’s ok, you pass as female, it’s transphobic not to include transwomen in female only provision.

At its core, your insistence on using female-only spaces, despite being told by women that your presence makes those spaces inaccessible to them, boils down to this: your comfort matters more to you than their consent, dignity, needs, or safety. That isn’t inclusion. That’s entitlement.

Third spaces are the most inclusive way forward. Whilst they don’t reflect your preferred choice, they do provide privacy and safety for all. You may be fooling yourself and others that you are fighting for inclusion, but the model of ‘inclusion’ you are fighting for is steeped in misogyny.

This thread highlights the importance and significance of the provision of effective counselling to enable informed consent to be secured prior to decisions being made to undergo cross sex hormone treatment and gender affirming surgery.

In the past, in order to access treatment, doctors needed to be confident that patients understood that the treatment wouldn’t alter their sex, that they understood the challenges that having a body with atypical sex presentation creates, in addition to understanding the physical side effects.

In the last 25 years, gender identity services have acted appallingly. Their fluffy, cosseted approach of ‘affirming gender’ and ignoring sex has contributed to patients making irreversible changes to their bodies without having a full and informed wider picture of the impacts.

Some patients would have opted for treatment regardless. However, many wouldn’t. I have met lots of patients who regret the physical intervention they received due to the impact this has had on their dating pool. Others regret it because they realise that it didn’t and couldn’t relieve their symptoms. I expect, going forward, there will be a new set of regrets relating to having been mislead about the law.

Some patients will be happy with the outcome of their treatment despite the above. This is great. What needs to follow is them being respectful of the laws relating to natal sex and acceptance that their treatment doesn’t make them eligible to be classified as the opposite sex in contexts where sex matters.

I accept that it’s shitty for those desperate to be the opposite sex when they can’t be. This is not dissimilar to those who are blind and wish they could see.

HRT doesn’t do anything for trans people as it’s not possible. You’re not replacing anything. What you’re having is cross-sex hormone therapy and while it may help you develop some secondary sexual characteristics it’s not changing your underlying biology.

I liked the post where a TIM was concerned about distressing men by changing in a men’s changing room with their breasts out. But distressed women are nothing to them.

Men are always the most important.

Yes, how surprising that men are centred and women and their needs ignored.

Not everything is about people with trans identities, Other groups have dignity and rights too. The role of the ECHR is to manage those different needs.

The recent Supreme court ruling made clear the law as it has always been. Men with trans identities were never actually legally permitted to use female only facilities. Nobody has been "banned". Legal clarity and respect for the boundaries of other protected groups has simply been restored.

It is not just about toilets, either. it is about every facility or category that is deemed single sex.

But it is not legal or remotely appropriate for you to use facilities designated for female people.

You're the one doing the over reacting and dramatisation here. Just get on with your life and at the same time respect the boundaries and protections that have been created for female people. If you actually had any empathy with women, you'd understand this; Rather than 'identifying as' it would be far more progressive to 'identify with'.

Only by your post at 18:04 yesterday, you also said

I am not a biological woman

There's probably rather a lot of people on here like me who had very sympathetic views towards trans people (I still do actually) until it became incredibly clear that somehow this belief system appeared to mean that women lost their sex based rights. My specialism was mental health so I like to think I have the capacity to stand back and treat people as individuals but equally I understand the capacity of humans to have beliefs and thoughts that aren't actually based in reality. The reality is ,is that you see yourself as a trans woman and believe that makes you a woman- the reality is, you are not and will never be a woman , so rather than try and fight that biological reality, isn't accepting yourself as a trans person the way forward? My spiritual beliefs mean that I think our souls will be repeatedly reincarnated into male and female bodies (my own pet theory as to why some people still feel they are the opposite sex) but that is my belief based on my own thoughts and internal feelings, I don't expect or need anyone else to agree with me and understand fully that people would challenge that belief system.

Needs is not a word for Princes, little man.

And zero risk of ovarian, cervical or uterine.

There's probably rather a lot of people on here like me who had very sympathetic views towards trans people

Everything I think in this debate was said in 1979. It was settled then.

That's absolutely nonsense. The Supreme Court ruled that, according to the Equality Act of 2010, women means women only, specifically excluding men who present themselves as if they were women.

The EHRC is merely making a practical summary, to allow employers and organisations to comply with the law; the law as it stands and has done these last 15 years.

I can sympathise with your dysphoria, but you are a man; morally and now, it's perfectly clear, legally, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to use the ladies single sex facilities.

This is based on the medic-scientific and legal bases that you are male, notwithstanding any surgery and hormone regimes you have chosen to undertake.

You simply are not any part of any subset of women.

Lol, you may live in a country founded on Liberty, most of us here definitely don't - whatever the UK is, it's not that! So thanks for confirming, and I'm glad we won't actually be encountering you in a toilet. And yet... mysteriously, we have a Supreme Court that has recognised material reality.