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?

A women is an adult human female.

Starting Woman with a capital letter is so effective at dissipating all those pesky scientific-y biologic-y definitions of 'woman', it can now magically include males..

Reality doesn't work that way, it works on facts, the awkward verifiable kind.
You keep looking for ways to ward it off, but reality/Reality is a very sticky thing..

I can't imagine it would be difficult to establish mens rea

And with that an entire generation of lawyers hits the scrap heap 😀

I only judge politicians by the actus rea - (just to give Bing some more homework). Everyday folk deserve the benefit of the doubt.

But you’re not a woman. If you were a woman you wouldn’t be a transwoman. The only criteria to be a transwoman is to be born male. Therefore as humans can’t change sex, you’ll need to use either the male facilities or unisex. You can’t use the women’s. You’re not a woman.

But you’re not a woman. If you were a woman you wouldn’t be a tallwoman.

I was was about a foot tall and only weighed a few kilos when I was born. Some things change! My gender is one of them.

In what way(s) are you not a man?

What primary sex characteristics of a woman is it possible to gain surgically?

so if i start surreptitiously putting my hrt patches on my husband, does that mean he will turn into a woman?

So you are claiming that you are going to have ovaries, Bartholin's and Skene's glands? Via surgery?

These men are awful

Don't give people ideas! That's the level of understanding sometimes on display.

Any update on this @AYoungTransWoman ?
You may have missed it earlier

do you never worry though that you will go through all that surgery and it still won't be enough? i'm always really interested in findings such as this "The most frequently reported reason for detransitioning by both sexes was that their personal definition of male and female had changed so that they became more comfortable identifying with their birth sex" (taken from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10322945/#:~:text=A%20minority%20of%20participants%20experienced,related%20medical%20interventions%20they%20received.). Some of my relief at the supreme court judgement and the start of rowing back of a decade or more of loss of womens rights over single sex spaces is that it may help to stop dragging yet more vulnerable young people into this ideology. You say that more and more young people are pro- trans...i'm extremely glad that my teen girls and their friends have been able to explore their emerging sexuality without homophobia , and they are indeed a tolerant generation, but it's no concidence that the 3 girls they have known at primary/secondary school who identify as boys are all autistic and have mental health challenges.

Sorry to be so terribly late to the party here but I just couldn't let this one go.

What do you mean by this, and do you have any examples?

Because it sounds to me like you're implying that black and Asian women look like men. And that is racism.

Oh gender. Of course that can change. But facilities aren’t separated on gender, they’re separated by sex. So as you’re male, you’ll don’t belong in women’s facilities.

Id love to know if someone who is "very aware that I cannot literally become a biological woman" is a, is in fact,a woman, what is the criteria for being a woman or being a man?

And why we would need separate facilities for men and women under this criteria?

Its not biology because TW do not have female biology, its not gender dysphoria, its not breasts, its not clothes, its not reproductive role. It cant be other people perception if its not biology or clothes. It cant be an inner feeling because, how can that be tested? And why would separate spaces be needed.

We arent going to have the definition of a women being whatever a man says it is, are we?

I think I should be saying 😃back to this, but I'm not sure I understand..
Did you think I meant that they were breaking the law by just stating their intent to break the law?
They'd have to do the actus rea, not just talk about it.

My point was that if someone says they are going to deliberately break the law, and then does deliberately break the law, surely there's not much room for any benefit of doubt about their mens rea, if they've boasted in public about their intention to do the actus rea.

Is that clearer, and less dismissive of the legal profession for whom I have a great respect?

It may well not be, but it doesn't really matter. I know that I'm not suddenly going to become a cis woman ever, as much as I'd want to be.

However, living the way I am now is still so, so much better than what I was before. I know it's not perfect, but it's closer.

Trans women are just as much at risk of male violence as cis women are. I've been a victim of SA and I fear men just as much as my cus friends do.

Being vulnerable to male violence isn’t the sole criteria for using female spaces. It’s also about privacy and dignity for women and girls.

Well males aka as transwomen aren't going to be any safer in the fucking ladies then are they? Because they are going to be around other males because any male can access the bloody ladies saying "I'm a lady" can't they?!

The logical fail is absolutely fucking astonishing.

No you aren't bloody special. You are just another male. Not female. Anyone admitting to coming in stealthly, should be kept out even more because they show they are male creep who don't respect female boundaries. Not just an ordinary bog standard common old garden variety bloke who stays out the ladies cos they do bloody respect us.

Trans women are just as much at risk of male violence as cis women are. I've been a victim of SA and I fear men just as much as my cus friends do.

So a women is defined by male violence? If a man decides to be violent towards someone, they are women?

You do think a women is defined by what a man thinks?

The problem TRA have if they threaten to go stealth, is that they cannot disclose to anyone that they are trans.

No trans days of visibility, no trans pride, no attention.

It'll be hard for them in more ways than one.

Yeah cus no man has ever sexually assaulted a woman in a woman's toilet without pretending to be trans have they? There's actually a super secret invisible barrier at every woman's toilet entrance that prevents him from entering until he calls himself a woman.

Nice straw man but okayyyy