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?

When substantive arguments can’t be won, the MO is typically (1) resort to appeals for ‘kindness’ and ‘inclusion’ that involve showing ‘kindness’ and inclusion to males with trans identities and not to females who want single sex provision to be single sex (2) resort to using contested definitions of ‘woman’ to obfuscate the issue at hand.

@AYoungTransWoman, surely you must concede that there are valid reasons for females wanting to exclude all males, regardless of their gender identity, from any provision designated for females and this is about them being male, not because of their gender identity. For the provision to be legal, there has to be a legitimate reason for making it female only.

You stated that you won’t use female only changing rooms until you have had ‘bottom surgery’. Is this for your sake only, or with other female service users in mind - or both? If it includes the feelings of others, why can’t you understand that whilst, for you, using toilets doesn’t elicit unwanted feelings in you, but does in others.

Well... as if we needed any more evidence that a group of male people will simply choose to disrespect female people and law.

Stealth...

Gosh.. that relies on 'passing'. And even the twitter profile that uses dishonesty where they post pictures of women such as J K Rowling and Helen Staniland as sick 'gotchas' must understand by now that they don't pass. Because if they did, they wouldn't abuse JK Rowling and Helen Staniland the way they do to try to make people believe that they pass.

But that word 'stealth', really does convey all that is needed to know about a group of male people who cannot accept that no one else on this planet has to believe that they are female people.

I think the internet has exposed a great deal about the men who want to be women that we wouldn't know from real life.

To friends and family he may seem polite, and using womens spaces because hes invited in and only where appropriate. On line, hes a different person, sexual motivated, using the spaces because of a sense of entitlement, hating women.

That used to stay in his own head, or when talking privately to other men. Now we can read it on the internet. It changes everything for women.

Its shocking how men are talking to each other on trans twitter. They dont care that we know this is sexual for them and how much they despise us and fantasise (i hop) about violence.

So if there are lovely ones out there, they have to ask themselves why they are blaming women for not accepting them when we can all see what do many of them think.

If they are coming here telling us we're wrong and not seeing the threats that are coming out if their community, it says a lot about what they really think.

I’ve not just spotted that Croft v Royal Mail seems to be cited here as case law supporting the case for males with trans identities using female only provision. The opposite is true. The ruling was that it was lawful for Royal Mail to exclude the male with the trans identity because an alternative provision was available.

Was the alternative provision the mens ? Or the accessible toilets ?

This is remarkable!

Did you actually post this with a straight face?

Here let me make it really clear.

“There is a huge difference in the fear women female people have, and the fear men male people have. You, a man, male person wouldn't understand.”

Said one male person to another male person.

Yet the male person being told this, RapidOnsetGenderCritic, is already well aware of that fact. But the male person delivering such a line doesn’t understand that it applies equally to them.

How misogynistic can you get when a male person appropriates female oppression axis?

What a thread.

Croft resigned claiming constructive dismissal because he wasn't allowed to use the female toilet. He was directed to a disabled toilet the other side of the building. Royal Mail agreed that he would be able to use the female toilet when he was further on in his transition. Much of the legal argument was concerned with at what stage he should be regarded as socially female & thus permitted to use the Ladies. including this in paragraph 65 (my bold)
The tribunal did not uphold Croft's claim but did indicate that there would have been a stage in his transition prior to surgery when he should have been permitted to use the female toilet. This Appeal Court decision has now been superseded by the Supreme Court clarification of the Equality Act 2010. As per EA 2010 Croft as a male would never have been permitted to use the female toilet even if he had surgery.

Some of the difficulties with Croft were that he had worked for Royal Mail for many years so other employees knew him as Nick the father of three children.

I don't need to ask if the needs of the disabled were raised or considered, because it would be a red letter day if they were.

I suppose trans people will have to stand in the wheelchair spaces on buses next. Why not ?

Whoops! I missed out paragraph 65 from the Croft judgment which is interesting because the court said that it was reasonable for the employer to require proof of anatomical sex. The assumption throughout the judgment is that a transexual is someone on a journey from one sex to another (yes I know🙄) taking hormones & ultimately surgery not someone who just puts on a frock & a bit of lippy because of lady feelz.

1. In my judgment, anatomical sex was a factor relevant to the decisions the respondents had to make and the request for information was relevant to the decision-maker's task. It was not discriminatory. Circumstances could arise in which any employee might reasonably be asked for proof of anatomical sex. The Employment Tribunal found (paragraph 59):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1045.html

See I look at the EHRC guidance as just another step.

Because the law has now been clarified and there will be stages for this to achieve the goal. Firstly, organisations can confidently set policies that make it clear that they follow the EA2010 and the workplace laws. Surely there are sanctions available then within those organisations to protect single sex spaces?

If this law is then unenforceable, discussions and changes then need to be had that allows the law to be upheld. For instance, if all id has to be changed back to birth sex (and those with DSDs are not included in this reversion) is that possible? Then someone can be asked for id if challenged.

No law is going to be 100% protection. However, this clarification is the first step to gaining maximum protection and it was very needed.

“On what basis? The right to privacy doesn’t extend to everyone having bathrooms just for their special demographic. Like we don’t have child free bathrooms, or religiously segregated bathrooms.”

”The segregation by sex is based on biology not privacy”

This was interesting to see pushing back on this ‘right to privacy’ that gets bandied around so much.

In my reading, I picked up that this ‘right to privacy’ is only also to be accommodated as far as sex segregation in the provision of spaces for the purpose of privacy.

One male person should be expect ‘privacy’ from another male person. And this should hold for any male person who chooses to have extreme body modifications to suit their belief about their identity that only is based on their own philosophical belief about identity and not a belief based on material reality.

And the privacy clause also tends to get posted without the moderating following clause about when this privacy can be deprioritised (if that is the correct word).

I'm still mulling over how you can be a woman, just not a biological woman.
Is it like being tall, just not biologically over 5'2"?

OP appears to mean that article 8.2 requires the state to intervene if harms are being caused. The GRA and attendant allowing of men into women's space and the related transition of children are both harms - so repeal the GRA. Looks logical to me.

Surely there are sanctions available then within those organisations to protect single sex spaces?

Of course. The are the same as ensuring employers make reasonable adjustments for less able folk.

So no fucking use then.

You can be anything you want in your head.

I'm the Queen of Planet Zog. I'm a shark.

Thank you for the neat summary, @Grammarnut.

We are told that we have to have the GRA because of the ECHR. Seems to me that the ECHR also gives us the grounds to repeal it.

In workplaces it's enforceable through the employment tribunal system. In services through the county court.

'Public' toilets are almost without exception situated in managed premises. If we encounter a man in the women's toilets we can report it and the management can require him to leave and if necessary ban him from the premises. If he kicks up a stink then the police can be called to assist with his removal and potentially arrest him for a public order offence. If he tries it in enough places he might end up with whatever they're calling an ASBO these days. Then if he continues to invade women's spaces he will be committing a criminal offence for which he can be arrested and prosecuted.

If the organisation chooses to do nothing and just lets men use women's facilities then we can take them to court for indirect discrimination and harassment related to the PC of sex.

It's not 100% perfect but to say it's unenforceable is simply not true. It won't take very many court cases before the vast majority of organisations fall into line, if only for the sake of their insurance policies.

Yes, the effects on women's rights were not considered in Goodwin. That was in the 'under the radar' days.

It won't happen like that this time round.

We won't even have to crowdfund because it will be the TRA vs. the government (although I'd happily chip in to help fund intervenors like Sex Matters and the Lesbian Intervenors).

It would be good if the TRA could pick on a big company with loads of dosh for their initial case, rather than destroy a small business or a little charity, which is perhaps too much decency to expect from them, but aside from that I agree, bring it on!

We won't even have to crowdfund because it will be the TRA vs. the government...

I think there will probably have to be some test cases along the way, which will be along Sandie Peggie lines, of a woman taking an organisation to court to get them to enforce her right to SSS.

I don't think the tide of sentiment will turn nearly as quickly within organisations, because that would demand a moral courage from leadership teams that I just don't see them as able to provide, and a radical shift in thinking within HR and middle management functions.

Policing will mostly fall on institutions and should in theory be bloodless. Men who use women's facilities can be barred from the pub, or given a warning by HR, or lose their gym membership. Institutions don't seem very keen so far though. Rather the opposite in some cases.

Why are you spamming this mediocre cartoon across multiple threads?

You are using an extremely narrow 'dictionary' definition of sex (either chromosomes or gametes) to make what is actually an argument about complex social behaviours in individuals who are, in this context, defined largely by how they do not conform to sex-influenced gendered behaviour.

As soon as someone complains about a narrow 'dictionary' definition of sex you know they are going to continue with a load of dishonest waffle.

Sex is binary and unchangeable. Don’t blame me, blame reality.

complex social behaviours in individuals who are, in this context, defined largely by how they do not conform to sex-influenced gendered behaviour are just that: behaviours.

You can’t change your sex. But you are totally responsible for your behaviour.

Edited to fix typo!