Treatment of trans people may breach EHCR, ministers told

[impossibletoday]

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

consent all round

That’s the mechanism by which the outing happens. It’s others’ inability to dissent that means the illusion of passing occurs.

The perceiving of a mixed sex space being a 'ghetto' is because it makes men have to face that they are not actual women, and that they cannot own and control and conquer all aspects of womanhood. It takes about 30 seconds of listening to be certain that capacity for respecting women's equality and access, or to even see women as actually human, is zero.

And that's why women need legal gatekeeping of their rights. It makes the case. Which is why such men are desperate to destroy the law.

Google thought I wanted to see this

CommHR(2025)53_letter to UK Parliament.pdf https://share.google/AwNZgEqEohL6LeHLG

it's the letter, jic. I thought there would be a thread about it. Women get thrown a bone in the last paragraph. No mention of our rights to privacy or of our dignity.

The man's a zealot.

The problem with this is that nobody is gatekeeping entry to single sex spaces, checking for people's gender recognition certificates.

So even if you had a robust process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate which included all the prerequisites you mention, in reality if you have to let men with a gender recognition certificate into women's spaces, you have no practical means of keeping other men out.

I think it would be wrong to make the issuance of a gender recognition certificate conditional on having genital surgery, because I don't think we should be incentivising anyone to have this surgery. In fact, if it were up to me I would ban these surgeries completely, worldwide. It's also giving false hope to these men that if they do these very extreme things to their bodies, they will finally have earned the right to be women. They won't have. They will never be women and it is better that they learn to accept that.

Women using women's changing rooms have no way of knowing whether the man who just walked in has a gender recognition certificate, or whether or not he has had his penis removed. We shouldn't have to think about that. We should just have the right to male-free spaces.

And the question still remains: what do we do with the women who cannot access a mixed sex space or resource or service?

There cannot be anyone left without provision. Including women who cant or wont prioritise the inner life of a man over themselves.

And what difference does it make to the woman's experience - for example the man arriving to strip search her, or to carry out intimate care - if he has a piece of paper at home?

Women who consent to some men, in some circumstances, will need to work all this out in the gender neutral mixed sex spaces, but due to the practical issues of gatekeeping anything in reality, if it's yes for one man then it's yes to all men.

The GRA was this attempt. It failed. Men broke it.

https://alessandraasteriti.substack.com/p/of-myths-and-misconceptions

Relevant to this thread, this analysis from Alessandra Asteriti is the most incisive I've ever read on this topic of transgenderism, international law and the ECHR. She goes through all the usual misconceptions and picks them apart with her scholarly expertise. Well worth reading.

If men who are furious about lack of access to non consenting women really want to go to the ECHR, then for the first time there is going to have to be a full, serious, proper look at the rights and equalities of women.

Like everyone else says, bloody bring it on.

Let's explain publicly about lesbians and the cotton ceiling, or about strip searches, or sport. Because you can bet your fucking life this is actually only about toilets and changing rooms.

There's no way they can justify men in rape refuges, or women's sport, so they will be cherry picking what access they mean.

And how's that gonna work? Men are women for some purposes, but not others?

And yes, let's get AGP on the table. Let's get the photographs of men in fishnets and boob tubes on the table and the ones taking selfies in women's loos, and the men who've written books about fetishism and sissy porn and what they think of women. All there in black-and-white, all documented.

Followed by men who want to decapitate women, rape them, and kill them. All of whom are trans.

Women hardly ever get to empty the pockets of these men and put all their weapons and hidden stuff on the head's desk.

But times have changed and as PP have said, we now have a seat in the room.

Bravo Datun i love your post.

Ooh, we've got a flower reaction now.

Thank you. Honestly. It's the height of enough all these men bloody pontificating about the law, human rights, etc, when half their representatives talk about how hot it is to be treated like a piece of meat, because that's what a woman is.

Pockets out, now!

😄

How lovely. We can give posters flowers now!!!

Fuck it.

Let's just think up a new name for people who share nothing but physical sex. Nothing to do with "knowing themselves to be a woman". Nothing to do with the word woman at all. "Ponfa and Ponma" or something.

Then we can say "Oooh yes of course madam you are a woman madam, because being a woman is nothing to do with being a ponfa and it's really sexist and transphobic to say it is".

And then we can get on with a brand new fight for Ponfa rights and ponfa validity and ponfa visibility and making everyone aware of the violence and prejudice that the ponfa population suffer and reclaiming our ponfa history and taking it to the ECHR

And "women" won't have a leg to stand on when we demand our rights, because rights aren't a pie and recognising the validity of ponfa existence doesn't take anything from women.

That's it I'm voting Reform. I really have had enough!
Don't make me do it.
www.theburkean.ie/articles/2025/07/24/europes-gender-czar-michael-oflaherty-the-ex-priest-wanting-to-make-gender-ideology-doctrine
By embracing gender ideology under the banner of inclusivity, institutions like the Council of Europe have alienated the very feminists who built their legitimacy fracturing their coalitions to the delight of the right and draining public trust from parents horrified at the trans agenda.
O’Flaherty doesn’t enforce rights; he redefines them turning free expression into a conditional privilege and disagreement into digital sin. Only in today’s Europe could a man who can’t define a woman be trusted to define human rights for 700 million people.
His Ukraine memorandum paid lip service to peace and justice but not before scolding society for insufficient gender sensitivity during wartime, as if frontline soldiers need pronoun briefings. If Kyiv survives the Muscovite onslaught it will have to face European-enforced gender madness as it tries to secure its national future

Men identifying as ponfa in 3....2....

Nor has it occurred to him that the disabled are genuinely limited in accessing public life (uck word salad) due to the lack of accessible facilities and have been for decades. They can't use other facilities. Our TTM (tiny transgender minority) can but are worried about their dignity or being outed.

Animal Farm occurs to me for some reason.

I don't think they will be able to pull the same trick twice. They'd have to explain what the connection between being a woman and having this unrelated anatomy is.

Yes.

The disabled just don't matter . Not equally. Not compared to men claiming gender identity.

Nor do homosexual people. Nor women. Nor religious tolerance or cultural tolerance. Age? Pfffft. They'll be dead soon.

Really the answer is probably just to take eight characteristics out of the Equality Act and re name it the TQ act. Rights above all other humans, and when equality, diversity and inclusion is mentioned it only means them. 98% of the act will oddly turn out to be all about ensuring the primacy of men, with a few vague passing references to women with trans identities.

It is worth noting in passing: the EqA wasn't perfect but it was sincere at the time, a good thing and intended to aid and support the vulnerable.

Through well intentioned wobbly boundaries, whataboutery, thoughtless signals of 'look at me, aren't I lovely and open minded and progressive', and oh go onnnnn/my lovely friend, the act has been comprehensively fucked over for eight of those characteristics, to the point that MPs are seriously wanting to alter it in law to remove the equality, inclusion and access in society for women, homosexual people, and with impact for some people with religious and cultural needs and for the disabled. To benefit men. To give them not equality, but power and control over other groups, to have more rights than those people do, including to use them and their bodies in a state of undress as non consenting resources. I'd get my Cassandra on and say we're about to see a serious try at this. It's bloody mindblowing how badly things have derailed.

Because of wobbly boundaries. This is why when women say no, and men and even worse other women say but..... they need to stop and think as to what they're enabling. Seriously.

Dont forget this:

“It is also to be recalled that not all trans people wish to obtain legal gender recognition, and in reality simply live according to their gender identity. 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.”

More ammunition for those in the Labour Party (and other Parties) who want to bring in self ID.

It is such mendacious fuckery.

They never acknowledge that for trans people to "simply live according to their gender identity" people like me must have a false gender identity "ciswoman" imposed upon us. An identity I neither feel nor even believe in, yet am forced to participate in simply because I have a female body.

Why does trans people's right to define me or decide who is and is not the same gender as me override my own?

I agree. But ultimately, I think people will stop and think.

When women say things like I'm not providing the undressed body of my daughter to validate your thoughts, it really nails at home.

And yes, obviously, we shouldn't have to...

Helleofabore

I sometimes think that if White is watching Naomi Cunningham in action, it must be like a replay of those old FWR threads in live action.

He's like a 4 year old in front of a mirror, being shown his crumbed, chocolatey face, still insisting that it was the goldfish what stole the choccy digestives.

Shabana Mahmood seems to be giving a robust responce.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/aaadf715-70a9-4d2b-9aa0-e03d6813ff21?shareToken=72f08dc7f8432af53a82558b1f6844e0

The home secretary has accused Europe’s human rights watchdog of undermining the case for Britain to remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights after it criticised the government’s stance on transgender rights and Palestinian protests.

Rather than fight to take women's rights away there is the obvious practical solution. If the men in question decided to be their authentic selves and use the facilities that they have the right to use, the problem would end. Other men should support men however they dress and protect the most 'vulnerable' men in society.

I'm sure that more people are seeing the truth with the Fife case and Darlington Nurses. Crossing everything that Sandie wins a significant payment and that it's all over the news. Ideally with the headlines refering to single-sex facilities being vital - legally - for women.

The Trans Rights Movement is the first human rights movement in history whose pursuit of rights for one group constitutes the removal of the rights of a second group. Meanwhile, Michael O'Flaherty, swallowing every morsel of "poor me, I'm a laydee" bullshit fed to him, completely misinterprets UK law and the Supreme Court ruling and pushes the UK ever closer to leaving the ECHR. I say a plague on both their houses.