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.

Who put it before the parliament? Is it the same motion that Athena wanted everyone to contact their MP.? I know a whole bunch of Labour MP's were mentioned in the Athena action, so I'm betting binding or not our government is going to try to follow it.

It also makes me think of another thread Captains Bar, the reason the bar gave for allowing men into ladies loo's was ‘legally-binding Global Human Rights Policy and Code of Non-discrimination, which prohibit discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics’. They're acting like this is the accepted thing, and it's all done and dusted, nothing to see here, move along the bus. 🤬

100%

No, the Athena one was the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which UK is a member

Looks like it. Phew one at last.

Ten years it took. Ten years.

Who said it was Not a Mens Rights movement?

Because TIF need all the same protections other women need.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0010_EN.html

Ffs 🤬 !! What the hell is wrong with these bloody idiots 🤦‍♀️

@IwantToRetire The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution.

“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.”

This from the OP suggests this is another iteration of the Denton’s playbook. Insert transactivism within a more popular legal change and hope it gets shoved through without much consideration.

Things in the UK have changed because there are women who now have an ear to the ground and rally the rest of us when something like this is attempted.

It also looks like things are changing in the US, though not so consistently, but the recent detransitioner medical negligence award is probably a harbinger of the approaching wave there.

Europe looks idiotic here. Lots of countries simply won’t implement it though and those who will embrace it already have self-ID so perhaps it won’t have too much impact. Hugely negative though and we have to hope that idiot UK politicians don’t try to claim it gives them a reason to reconsider UK laws.

Rattle on about do the right thing and the reclassify some women and girls to a "people" class

So replace
women = some gender conforming women and some gender non-conforming men

Girl = some gender conforming girls and some gender non-confoeming boys

B. whereas gender equality, democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law are indivisibly linked; whereas a growing backlash against women’s rights and gender equality is driven by the rise of anti-gender and anti-democratic movements; whereas recent cuts in US development aid disproportionately impact women and girls worldwide, increasing vulnerabilities and harming communities; whereas the UN General Assembly has warned of active resistance to gender equality and a transnational backlash against women’s rights; whereas there is an urgent need to reaffirm substantive equality and the human rights of women and girls

E. whereas access to justice is widely recognised as a fundamental human right under international law, a core concept in the broader field of justice, and a cornerstone of the rule of law and democracy; whereas the EU recognises access to justice as a fundamental right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; whereas effective access to justice requires reliable data, transparent procedures, evidence-based policymaking and impartial institutions that ensure that women and girls can exercise their rights without discrimination; whereas access to justice is a fundamental human right based on fair laws, effective enforcement, affordable support, gender-responsive institutions and accountability mechanisms; whereas discriminatory laws, gender stereotypes, financial barriers and institutional bias continue to hinder many women and girls, especially those facing intersecting discrimination; whereas women and girls in vulnerable situations, including those with disabilities, those living in rural or remote areas and elderly women, often face additional obstacles in accessing justice and legal support; whereas digitalisation and artificial intelligence increasingly shape access to justice, requiring action against algorithmic discrimination, digital exclusion and online harms; whereas legal aid is essential to equitable access to justice, while exchanges in best practice help to strengthen the quality and consistency of legal aid systems;

No-one bothered about the rights of the Chagos islanders, either, who didn't want to become part of another state. Starmer ignored them (and the right to self-determination).

Yes, because he thinks it will reflect well on him on the international stage.

Abroad is bloody, and foreigners are fiends. Can it be true?

Oh stop going on about it.

I never said it was.

I have twice posted about the difference.

Why not read the thread as a whole.

I made one typo and pointed this out later.

Heavens sake.

Only the 'correct' opinions were allowed by the oh so 'inclusive brigade'.

"The Patriots for Europe group also denounced that, despite being the third largest force in Parliament, it was excluded both from the prior negotiations of the text and from the official mission that will travel to the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York in March."

‘Trans Women’ Are Women, EU Parliament Says ━ The European Conservative

The EU Parliament does not actually have all that much power when it comes to drafting legislation. Unlike the UK House of Commons, it does not even possess the right to formally initiate the creation of new legislation. It accepts or rejects the initiatives of the European Commission - similar to the way the House of Lords works.

It is just mouthing off here.

Here is the full report. The trans bit - which is fairly generic and mostly vague - is two lines in several pages of what is otherwise good stuff.

This is just a report for the consideration of the European Council for issues to be raised at the session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The EU isn't even a member of the UN (just the individual member states) so it doesn't even have a vote and is only an observer.

European Report

I'd want to read the actual resolution text before reacting to this, because the framing here concerns me.
The claim that being trans is a "dissociative disorder linked to paraphilia/fetishism" and "mostly adopted by heterosexual men" isn't what the medical evidence shows. My daughter isn't a fetishist. She's a teenager who has been consistent about who she is since she could talk. Characterising all trans women this way isn't just inaccurate, it's designed to provoke disgust rather than thought.
On the substance: I share concerns about how we protect vulnerable women in spaces like refuges. These are genuinely difficult questions. But the framing that any inclusion automatically means danger isn't borne out by the evidence from countries and services that have had inclusive policies for years.
What I notice is that this passed 340 to 141. That's not a narrow squeak or a trick. A large majority of elected MEPs voted for it. We can disagree with them, but dismissing it as "radical ideology" doesn't explain why so many people across different countries reached a different conclusion than you have.
If the concern is genuinely about safety in refuges, I'm happy to discuss what policies might address that. If the concern is that trans women shouldn't exist in public life at all, then we probably won't find much common ground.

On the substance: I share concerns about how we protect vulnerable women in spaces like refuges. These are genuinely difficult questions.

No. It's not difficult at all. ALL men need to stay out of women's refuges. That's actually very simple.

Disagree, trans women are not men. Anyway, stop discussing here, obviously leads to nowhere

But that's nonsense. They are. You know that.

There is zero scientific, objective, verifiable criteria that indicates they are anything other than men.

What the fuck were these TiMs before they Transed, same as they actually are biologically now I suppose? One cannot "trans" from the same sex to another. Ever.

I'm so sick of all this now.

I understand why you feel so certain about this. And I'm not going to pretend we're likely to agree.
But I'd push back gently on the idea that there's "zero scientific criteria." The major medical and psychiatric bodies globally recognise gender dysphoria as a real condition, and recognise transition as an appropriate treatment for many people. You can disagree with that consensus, but it exists. It's not nothing.
More practically though, I think the "all men" framing actually obscures the real question, which is about risk. The concern in refuges is safety from violence. So the relevant question becomes: do trans women as a group pose a risk to other women in these spaces?
The evidence from services that have operated inclusive policies, some for decades, doesn't show a pattern of trans women attacking other residents. That doesn't mean no policy questions remain. It doesn't mean individual risk assessments aren't sometimes appropriate. But it does suggest the framing of "any male body equals danger" isn't quite capturing reality.
I also notice that this framing requires my daughter to be categorised alongside male perpetrators of violence against women. She's a teenage girl who is afraid of the dark and cries at sad films. The categorical "all men" position requires you to see her as equivalent to the men that women are fleeing from. I can't accept that, not because I'm ignoring biology, but because I know her.
Where does your certainty on this come from? Is it theoretical, or have you had experiences that shaped it?

The concern in refuges is safety from violence. So the relevant question becomes: do trans women as a group pose a risk to other women in these spaces?
The evidence from services that have operated inclusive policies, some for decades, doesn't show a pattern of trans women attacking other residents. That doesn't mean no policy questions remain. It doesn't mean individual risk assessments aren't sometimes appropriate. But it does suggest the framing of "any male body equals danger" isn't quite capturing reality.

Oh come off it. I realise you've got skin in the game, because you cannot admit that your child is actually male, but that is not what the main concern is in refuges. It is about the presence of a man in what should be a safe psychological and emotional space for women (actual women) who have been abused and traumatised by men.

The major medical and psychiatric bodies globally recognise gender dysphoria as a real condition, and recognise transition as an appropriate treatment for many people. You can disagree with that consensus, but it exists. It's not nothing.

None of that means that TW are not men however

But it does suggest the framing of "any male body equals danger" isn't quite capturing reality

Any male body could equal danger, that's the basis of the safeguarding approach of single sex spaces for women. Lots of men have grounds to say they are less dangerous. But we keep them all out for this reason.

I also notice that this framing requires my daughter to be categorised alongside male perpetrators of violence against women. She's a teenage girl who is afraid of the dark and cries at sad films

This framing simple acknowledges that your child is a man and as such has no claim on women's places. My husband cries watching Ratatouile. That is of no consequence to this point whatsoever.