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 all they've got

Weird cartoon, confusing because female character appears male and male character appears female, eg shape of hips (as in transgenderist’s imagination).

And women should not object to men parading their sex fetishes to an unconsenting audience? OK …

To get the case they need in front of the ECtHR the test case would have to be a TRA taking an organisation to court for not letting him in the ladies. Aside from maybe crowdfunding for interventions from interested parties we can save all our money for the popcorn.

Separately, there will probably have to be a few test cases to enforce the SC judgment but not many. It's amazing how quickly leadership can find their moral courage when things like 'the bottom line' and 'having valid insurance' are involved.

Market forces ought to come into play as well. There's a customer demand from both men and women for measures aimed at promoting safety/fairness/modesty between the sexes, but it's been muted, because people:

Are unaware of the issue, or

Are high on their own virtuousness, or

Don't want to get cancelled, or

Don't want to challenge the more aggressive and socially powerful sex, or

Don't see a problem because the people affected are primarily women (or minority religion males) - and who cares about them?

When will Which? magazine start giving providers star ratings for sex-based rights compliance?

I sincerely hope your medical team has explained that as a biological male, genital surgery means you are still at risk of prostate cancer. Opposite sex hormones may reduce the risk slightly, but the cancer symptoms are the same as the common urinary side effects of genital surgery, so may be ignored.

Cancer doesn't give a shit about your pronouns. Please don't let your conviction you're a woman lead you to think you don't need screening. Screening saved my dad's life.

Male transexuals taking oestrogen also have an increased risk of death from all causes particularly from stroke but also from cancers.

Im guessing they’ll try with a man with a GRC and surgery, probably at work. To claim the policy is outing?

Itll be interesting to know if they can find anyone

Im guessing they’ll try with a man with a GRC and surgery, probably at work. To claim the policy is outing?

Outing is simply people not playing along with the trans person's choices.

How can we tell the difference between a trans-IDing man who ' just wants to pee in peace' and a man who gets his kicks by abusing women's boundaries? How is a female survivor of sexual violence to know that her body does not need to go into survival mode when she hears/sees/smells a trans-IDing man in a place she could reasonably expect to be man-free? How are distressed/confused/traumatised/autistic children to understand that the trans ideology and Be Kind are harmful?

Are you suggesting that how well a person passes should be the key to whether they trigger the caveats in the ECHR that support repeal of the GRA, or, at the very least, completely put the brakes on transgenderism?

This whole 'outing' business is a bit dubious anyway - not wanting to use the unisex toilet because it would out them as a transperson, for instance, doesn't make sense when literally [as in proper literally] everyone may use it.

And apart from the fact that a lot fewer transpeople 'pass' than they imagine, I wonder what proportion want to keep it hidden, and what proportion can't stop going on and on about being trans?

Dr Upton of NHSFife fame, for instance, makes much of the fact that he's just a biological woman like any other biological woman, but he also revealed in his evidence that 'some' [I'm guessing: all] colleagues knew that he was trans from the beginning, so it was well known in the workplace that whatever he's calling himself now, he was originally a man.
So using gender neutral facilities could not have outed him any further.

I agree that how well a transperson passes seems like a bad criterion to use - it's rewarding them for being better at deception than other transpeople..

Are you suggesting that how well a person passes should be the key to whether they trigger the caveats in the ECHR that support repeal of the GRA, or, at the very least, completely put the brakes on transgenderism?

Although we've seen a huge switch in support to "our side", it's largely uninformed - the YouGov surveys have shown that support for men in female spaces drops massively when you specify that it's men who haven't undertaken any surgery. So yes, it would make sense for the other side to start like that, whether we like it or not.

There will always be a mix of opinions, and, as per the Dentons playbook, we should expect these "thin end of the wedge" interventions and be ready to counter them.

Three anonymous claimants have been joined to the fox botherer's case against EHRC:

5. ... These proposed Second, Third and Fourth Claimants are trans and intersex persons who have been personally affected by the Commission’s Guidance.

39. ... The employers of the Second, Third and Fourth Claimants have each changed their policies in response to the Guidance.

From GLP's statement of grounds

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

So yes, at work, and presumably with GRCs as that is what the SC judgment and EHRC's interim update were about. And yes, they are arguing that EHRC's interim update and/or the Workplace Regs and/or the EA as interpreted by the SC judgment:

2 ... is causing trans people who transitioned years or decades before For Women Scotland to be outed

They haven't got permission yet for judicial review. The judge told them to go away and make their arguments more coherent. There's a combined hearing in November to decide whether they have permission and then if so, to hear the case.

Although we've seen a huge switch in support to "our side", it's largely uninformed - the YouGov surveys have shown that support for men in female spaces drops massively when you specify that it's men who haven't undertaken any surgery. So yes, it would make sense for the other side to start like that, whether we like it or not.

I think a lot of men tend to take the rather simplistic view that

"If they're serious enough to have it lopped off, they're probably not a threat to women".

Which doesn't alter the fact that only a very small proportion of people claiming trans status have had surgery.

or a woman who identifies as a man, even less objectionable to the public.

So obviously they’ll try to appeal if they get knocked back in November, who would hear that appeal?

A lesser but still sizeable number of women take the same view.

But I thought people who transitioned “years or decades ago” had to sign a disclaimer before surgery affirming that they knew they weren’t literally changing sex. Yes they were probably encouraged by their doctors to use female facilities as part of that transition but the two transexuals I knew that transitioned 25+ years ago still do not “pass”. Everyone was very polite and treated them as “honorary women” but there was no disguising their sex. I am very fed up with the “don’t out people/invade their privacy” argument being used as a proxy for “you must comply with my delusion”.

And enough with dragging intersex into the argument again!

I was speculating the cases TRA might bring forward to challenge single sex spaces.

Its changed now, with twitter famous trans people announcing they have a GRC, but in theory, the GRC gives privacy and a root to hide sex - all of the id is in the incorrect sex, and unless the holder gives permission, no one else can know why.

So its feasible that someone might be known at work as one sex, and even if everyone strongly suspects, they dont know for sure they are trans. If they have to stop using one toilet, its giving the other workers more clues? So could the GRC holder claim that is disproportionate?

The more committed they are to the transition process, they stronger their claim could be? I dont know.

It depends on what the GRC was meant to achieve - hide sex or give the holder an inner feeling gender.

Isn't the problem precisely that: it was never really thought through at the time exactly what the point of it all was? A lot of hand-waving going on.

It depends on what the GRC was meant to achieve - hide sex or give the holder an inner feeling gender.

Either? Both? Neither? How can we know what such an illogical, ill-thought-out and inconsiderate piece of legislation was intended to mean.

Very, very few trans-IDed people truly pass as the opposite sex. Even those who have had extensive body-modification, like Jenner and Willoughby, give themselves away by things that can't be changed, such as hand-size, and masculine aggression. Females, like Whittle and Angel, trigger the 'uncanny valley' reaction. Even these people are massively outliers. But taking them into consideration (unlike the legislators who did not take the opposite sex into consideration) perhaps the best thing to do would be to repeal the GRA, never issue any more GRCs, and grandfather the status of the existing GRC holders.

The critical thing is to stop the damage transgenderism is doing, not to punish or humiliate distressed, confused people.