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'm assuming they're a young American social justice warrior as they lack basic understanding of the European court of hunan. Rights, the gender recognition act, the equality act and keep using Americanisms such as bathroom fir public toilet

Ah so now we are throwing race around as a coercive force teaming tactic.

Good stuff.

Regardless, transwomen are still men.

Well that would explain he amazing levels of factual incorrectness.

Interestingly, less do than men.

Funny that.

It doesn't matter. One woman is enough. Plus we still have the law.

It's not a populist vote. And if it was youd still lose.

What do you mean by this? I'd like you to explain it in your own words.

All the shite Reddit/Bluesky arguments - must be a novelty to have them refuted or disagreed with!

No, that’s complete nonsense.

These ridiculous arguments are all they have.

Yeah... to be honest I'm not even seeing an argument, just a one-liner. It's like ChatGPT, might sound potentially convincing until you probe beneath the surface of what's actually being said.

I do genuinely want to know what that poster means by "your ideology disproportionately harms women of colour" though. I'm not trying to catch them out, I want to understand what they mean. It would be useful if they could expand a bit on that.

I'm assuming they're a young American social justice warrior as they lack basic understanding

You didn't need to enumerate from that point.

Well obviously if you are counting men as women then of course they disagree.

How many people with XX chromosomes disagree ?

How old were you when Section 28 was removed? I don't think you know what you are talking about.

"When the old men do the fighting and the young men all look on...."

But you are (if you are a transwoman) a man like me. Perhaps not the most masculine of men, but a man all the same. You can pee next to me.

Please excuse me for asking this question - I am not actually wanting to kniw what you personally plan to do, but the question exposes some of the limitations of "gender affirming care". Are you going to have surgery to change your primary sex characteristics into those of a woman?

What definition of woman are you using there?

Homophobia started losing ground as gay people came out and those around them realised that gay people as a group were as diverse as straight people and the only difference was who they were sexually attracted to.

The opposite has happened with increased exposure to trans people. It is becoming more and more obvious that the ‘trans umbrella’ contains a disproportionate number of disturbed and disturbing people. This is why there is less acceptance towards including transwomen in women’s spaces than back in the day where transsexuals met less resistance.

The sooner TRAs start lobbying for mental health support and for distinguishing between gender dysphoria, personality disorders and fetishes, the more likely it is that people will get the right support and learn how to operate in society without transgressing others’ boundaries

I would love to know what this means too. It reminds me of the time someone on X said that if Serena Williams was playing tennis today, JKR would be calling for her to be banned. Except then someone did a search of JKR's account and all they could find were examples of her talking about what a phenomenal athlete SW is. Oh and there was the time JKR defended her against the vile misogynistic abuse she was getting because of her athletic physique.

But, yes, gender critical feminism is all about upholding western standards of beauty 🙄 Honestly, the stories they have to tell themselves rather than engage critically with the substance of our arguments.

Homophobia started losing ground as gay people came out and those around them realised that gay people as a group were as diverse as straight people and the only difference was who they were sexually attracted to.

A much darker explanation is that old people died.

Argentum Ad Hominem

Surely you can muster some sort of facts based rebuttal?

Not the case. The UK is bound to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that if the Court finds a violation of rights, the UK must implement the Court's judgments. GOV.UK bihr.org.uk

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

lol you don’t know your own country’s legal obligations

The UK is bound to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that if the Court finds a violation of rights, the UK must implement the Court's judgments. GOV.UK bihr.org.uk

It's worked well with Hungary hasn't it?