Treatment of trans people may breach EHCR, ministers told

[impossibletoday]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/aaadf715-70a9-4d2b-9aa0-e03d6813ff21?shareToken=ca3c7b78d61975b92fe55d4e60c7f7b5

Why do they find it so fucking hard to understand that there are 2 protected characteristics in play here - and that one can't override the other.

"may" and "could" are doing a lot of work here

And also 'in their and other nefarious folx opinion'...
(Did I spell 'folx' correctly to make sure all bases covered? 🤨)

I see he has been lobbied by RMW et al

What a naive person...

He warned that trans guidance introduced across different areas of society in the UK following the ruling in April by the UK Supreme Court — declaring that the definition of a woman must be based on biological sex — may also breach the ECHR.

Well - he has misunderstood that - it has been law for 15+ years, and wasn't defined or introduced in April - simply confirmed / clarified. It has also been biological fact for several thousand years 😉

The Supreme Court was also very clear to demonstrate that this doesn't affect the 'rights' held by 'Trans' people.

Perhaps time we walked away from the ECHR which seems to not consider logic or law in its statements!

The reality is that the cat is out of the bag - the small child has commented that the Emperor is wearing no clothes - whatever happens now, it has become acceptable to state the truth and be honest that men can not ever become women. We have clarity around biology / we have an awareness that medical intervention of children is abuse - and this will be seen more and more as children grow up, realise that their lives have been wrecked and take to the courts to pursue doctors and parents.

It is never going back to the old days of misogynistic bullying to be told that you must spout lies...

It's like when you say no to a tweenager and they threaten to call Childline.

These men are never going to give up.

Pathetic,

Well as a commissioner and a professor he does not seem too familiar with Convention rights.

All the comments point out his lack of critical thinking and complete ignorance of the rights of women and UK law.
As ever, another example of how once intelligent people beclown themselves when they start pontificating on the rights of men to access women's sport, showers, changing rooms etc etc

Treatment of women by trans identified males does breach ECHR rights, world reminded

I can't bear the idiocy of this movement. The entirety of trans rights involves a group of people pretending to be something they're not, and therefore claiming the rights of another protected characteristic. You might as well claim that "trans disabled" people must have the same rights and protections as actual disabled people, or that "trans black" people (ie white people pretending to be black) should have the same rights and protections as black people.

As soon as you start believing that a group of people can pretend to be something else, and be legally recognised as that something else, you create a massive legal problem that you have to then manage. It never fails to astonish me that neither the people who drew up the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, nor those responsible for the 2010 Equality Act, ever managed to grasp this.

So we need to leave the ECHR is women and LGB people (and men and stright people) are to have sex based rights? Is that the argument?

Britain needs to leave the ECHR immediately.

The Outing Yourself when you use the bathroom really annoys me. Is the entire population of this country Outing Themselves when they use the bathroom? Men and women living their lives, doing their jobs, wearing whatever they want, just getting on with it, and then Outing Themselves when they go to the loo? People with disabilities going along day to day, then Outing Themselves as having a disability when they go to the toilet?
There’s nothing wrong with being honest about your biological sex. It doesn’t stop you living your life as you choose. The only thing it stops you doing is lying about your biological sex. Hence ‘stealth’.

What "areas of life" are trans people being stopped from accessing?
and
How are they being forced to out themselves when in order to be trans you have to (as far as I can see) do things that out yourself?

It would be interesting to know who he met on his visit to the UK. Did he meet any women who have had their human rights breached? Did he speak to any women's orgs?

"He added: “...This does not in any way diminish their right to be treated with dignity, to be protected from discrimination, and to be able to participate in all areas of everyday life.”

The SC confirmation of a 15+ year old ruling didn't 'diminish rights', didn't suggest that trans individuals shouldn't be 'protected from discrimination' and most certainly didn't say they couldn't 'participate in all areas of everyday life'.

Trans people can still use public loos that align with their sex, they can still use changing rooms that align with their sex, they can still participate in sport that align with their sex. Just not their gender ideology bollocks...boo fucking hoo...

Yes surely the first step of Outing Yourself as having gender dysphoria is telling everyone you want to be treated as a different sex.

I just think everyone needs to stop moaning about their boring narcissistic luxury problems and get a damn job doing something useful if they've this much time on their hands

I feel incredibly sorry for transwomen. It must be incredibly difficult to remain stealth whilst looking like a brickie and centring your entire life around the fact that your transgender identity makes you objectively better, yet infinitely less privileged, compared to everyone else.

And denying women and homosexual people their legal rights does break UK law and would stand a probably much greater chance of breaking EHCR than this does. There is no 'human right' for a man to watch or touch a non consenting woman in a state of undress to meet whatever he needs he feels he may have.

It's more or less confirmed though that we're all being warmed up for a serious attempt to remove women and gay rights in law to benefit this small group of men and their very unreasonable demands.

It actually must be stressful going around wondering if anyone will slip up today or forget to #bekind and lie about reality. Then you have to rebuild your fragile self image again and again. It actually must be exhausting to care so much about yourself and know the whole facade is only tissue paper thin.
It’s the opposite of authenticity, when they are supposed to be living their most authentic lives.

100%

I accept that excluding people with trans identities from single sex provision, because of their sex, can raise privacy, dignity and safety concerns for those people.

However, the solution of making all single sex provision mixed sex, removes the dignity, privacy and safety protections provided to those without trans identities, so this isn’t a viable solution. The framing of ‘biological sex’ and ‘certified sex’ enables this to be shown in the courts, where clear definitions can’t be circumvented.

I also agree that a gender recognition certificate becomes meaningless if it does nothing more than officially record someone’s gender identity - not dissimilar to being an official member of a fan club.

The point at hand is what rights should a gender recognition certificate afford? My understanding was that its intention was to enable same sex marriage, aligning of pensionable age, and to enable certificate holders to keep their sex hidden.

I cannot see any revisions or new legislation getting through the UK courts that removes sex as a protected characteristic. VAWG is endemic and there isn’t the public appetite to permit males with trans identities into spaces where sex matters.

The Act went through without public scrutiny. Where people were aware of it, they had in mind a tiny and very different population than that which they are exposed to today. Obfuscation won’t work.

We do need to put an end to this battle. It is polarised because there are conflicting interests. I am confident that sense will prevail in any UK context in which the facts are scrutinised. I also think that the ECHR would struggle to object to laws that are well thought out - which the GRA isn’t!