The EU Parliament has voted to recognise "trans women" as women for all purposes

[Columbidae]

With thanks to shyChic63 who posted this on Vexxed and to Róisín Michaux for the report below which she posted on X.

BREAKING: The EU Parliament has voted to recognise "trans women" as women for all purposes, explicitly calling for them to be granted access to women-only domestic violence shelters and refugees.

An EU delegation will present this radical recommendation at the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York next month. It is not binding, but intended to be adopted/followed as an "international standard". It also demonstrates the ideological makeup of the European Parliament.

Few speakers mentioned the "trans women" part of the recommendation during the debate leading up to the vote. Parties could have asked for a vote on the individual paragraph, but having failed to do so, MEPs were left with a choice between rejecting the entire resolution, or adopting it with no possibility of removing the trans paragraph.

The chamber was almost empty for the debate. Left-wing parties and centre-right parties concentrated on the Epstein files, "gender" stereotypes, the "gender pay gap", and the "anti-gender movement" as well as ICE operations in the US. MEPs from both the Patriots party and the European Conservatives and Reformists, spoke up in favour of protecting the category of woman in international fora. They were defeated.

*Trans women are males who identify as women, a dissociative disorder linked to paraphilia/fetishism. This identity is mostly adopted by heterosexual men.

340 YES
141 NO
68 ABSTAIN

https://nitter.net/RoisinMichaux/status/2021925086643581063?s=20

For those who understand these things it would be interesting to hear what impact this might have.

I'm pretty clueless but I know it's an appalling betrayal of women.

This is extraordinary. WTH is wrong with these people?

Oh FFS.
Lost for words at the absolute denial of reality.

I despair.

I'm not surprised one jot. MEPs are so divorced from people they represent that they will still enthusiastically adopt ideas that Society are moving away from.
A nice gravy train for those who can get it.

I'm a Europhile in that I think the coming together in the 1950s and 60s of nations that were slaughtering each other in the 1940s was an amazing and admirable achievement.

The EEC and EU have had a positive influence on prosperity and - yes - social justice - women's rights have been hurried along in parts of Europe where they were seriously lagging behind.

But gender ideology has rotted their brains, collectively. I don't know how or why it took hold so firmly, but it is a huge failure in the EU and other European institutions. A disaster.

Is there finally an obvious benefit of Brexit?

But what is the actual law here? Voting that a thing would be lovely, is not changing the law EU-wide. Will need to look into it.

Perhaps there is some hope in the fact it is not binding, although it would be intended to be followed as best practice.

And it cannot overule UK law. I just wonder what it could mean in regards to the challenges the TRAs are hoping to escalate to the ECtHR.

The fact so many have agreed with the notion is just so demoralising.

An EU delegation will present this radical recommendation at the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York next month. It is not binding, but intended to be adopted/followed as an "international standard". It also demonstrates the ideological makeup of the European Parliament.

Right. So no law(s) have actually been changed.

This came up on the other thread.

Yes, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is binding on the UK under international law as a treaty obligation. While not part of supreme domestic law, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates these rights, allowing UK courts to enforce them, though Parliament can technically legislate contrary to them.

Not because of this ruling, but this "obligation" is why some MPs think the UK should leave the ECHR.

But clearly loads rejected the vote, if the chamber was quite empty. This is posturing.

And EU law has nothing to do with the ECHR. The TRAs are whistling into the wind if they think that a) ECHR is legally binding, and b) GANHRI will mark the UK down.

But look how smoke and mirrors like the Yogyakarta Principles became de facto 'international standard' - an international version of Stonewall Law, so to speak.

I thought the UN already accept TW as women.

This is why the UK has been said to be backward, because under the law we have women (biological) and "legal women" ie GRC, but doesn't recognise self identity.

Which I think both the UN and EU do.

Just to repeat as we posted at the same time:

Yes, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is binding on the UK under international law as a treaty obligation. While not part of supreme domestic law, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates these rights, allowing UK courts to enforce them, though Parliament can technically legislate contrary to them.

Not because of this ruling, but this "obligation" is why some MPs think the UK should leave the ECHR.

Ah, I missed a thread, sorry.

Thanks for the info.

The more crackers the ECHR looks, the more likely we can leave it.

But even if countries are bound by its rulings, it's up to those countries how to implement them.

What about so-called transmen. Were they not part of the recommendations?

Is there a UN Commission on the Status of Men? And if not, why not?

I think out 2 posts happened at the same time. So you wouldn't necessarily look back.

I only reposted as it comes up because it is so confusing.

Although not sure that our UK Government is much into obligations.

This is true, I’d add Aus, NZ and Canada and half of US.

This has never yet been put up against the ECtHR with regard to the impact on women's rights. Women's rights have never been given equal consideration, or the impact upon them looked at in this light. that's where it's likely to fall down. This is all lovely until you start to think about women having rights too, and needs, and those needs and rights and women's humanity not being something that should come secondary to the wishes and desires of men for self expression. Using their bodies. Without regard for their consent.

Article 8 is not an unconditional, absolute right like the right to life; it has to fit around other people having rights and equality with the invoker. Unless of course they want to say that women don't have article 8 rights too, or that women's article 8 rights are subordinate to men's wishes.

We're going to see the GLP try this one out, and when you read their case it's all based on no one mentioning that women are equal humans and have rights too. It's just wholly ignored.

Our deal with the Chagos Islands came about because of a recommendation by the UN (I believe) that wasn't binding, but Starmer felt that we should accept to show our credentials as a reputable nation.
No matter that no other nation did this.
So, yes, I am worried about the implcations of this.

All EU nations follow the ECHR, but don't have the Human Rights Act which essentially allows judges to overrule all law in this country with their interpretation of the ECHR.

Worth noting though that the ECtHR and ECHR are completely different to and separate from the EU parliament.
However, I think that the unthinking acceptance of this as part of a wider recommendation is worrying. It is the sneaking in of undesirable elements as part of a larger whole that is so typical of the TRA/GI movement.

Sorry for a typo. EHRC and ECtHR

And in fact I have been participating in this thread thinking it was the other thread about ECtHR where representatives from the UK did take a similar vote in relation to the ECtHR.

I think I will go and have a coffee.

Yes. I've waited years, but there is one after all.