EHRC Guidelines are an attempt to erase trans and intersex people from public life, this document is genocidal in nature

[IwantToRetire]

Sorry if this has been posted, but I've just had a nearly total meltdown. Not just the heat but my brain having to find that men would presume to say challenging trans identity is a form of genocide

... The Lemkin Institute cannot read the new EHRC guidance as anything other than an attempt to make life harder for the trans and intersex communities in the UK and to erase them from public life as much as possible. There are also several instances where the Code of Practice tends towards the forced outing of trans people who dare to exist in public spaces, which is incredibly harmful and puts trans and intersex people at risk of violent assault.

The guidance is based on the bizarre notion that services cease to be single-sex if trans people are allowed to use them. It goes on to state that this would “very likely to amount to unlawful sex discrimination against the people of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it.” This means that if a business, for example, allows both trans and cis women to use the women’s toilet, but does not allow cis men to use that same toilet, cis men could claim discrimination on the basis of sex, even though a men’s toilet exists. It is unclear what disadvantage or unfavourable treatment cis men in this scenario would be facing, which are required components of discrimination according to the Code of Practice itself. Given that women’s toilets tend to be busier and have longer lines, we believe that being able to use the male toilet could actually be described as an advantage. ...

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-anti-trans-and-anti-intersex-ehrc-code-of-practice-in-the-united-kingdom

They also appropriate the cause of said people with DSDs, which people with DSDs have expressly asked that TRAs not do.

There have been absolutely no boundaries on dishonesty in this matter, all this came from an activist body marketing intentionally wrong information and decieving providers of services that it was law. Their aim, to set their preferred practice in place, and for the law to then have to change to fit what they had made common practice. There were no boundaries or consequences for this. We've had the BBC and government freely joining in on disemenating biased, deceptive information that has bordered on actual lies and propaganda, and again, no consequences or boundaries to this.

It's been appalling to watch. I don't think Burnham is about to be any beacon of truth and honesty either. But without boundaries, it's not surprising that unbalanced activists can state this rubbish and expect it to be believed by MPs among others. On another thread at the moment is an activist trying to overturn the guidance without apparently understanding this is not the same as law, and identifying as not wanting to destroy women's rights or gay rights because that's an uncomfortable thought - they seem unable to face their own intent.

Agree but I think it's useful in that it highlights how totally deranged and lunatic the entire ideology is and how people in positions of responsibility (e.g. teachers, headteachers, DSLs) who should be able to demonstrate they are rational to keep their jobs should not be entertaining it. At all.

The whole thing is just the toddler like unilateral changing of words to mean whatever the toddler person using them wants them to mean and not what they actually mean.

In this case 'genocidal' means the law stating facts. In other areas 'female' can include males. When it actually can't.

It is insulting to those who have been killed in actual genocide but as is so clearly displayed here, entitled men having temper tantrums don't care about anyone else.

I don't think Burnham is about to be any beacon of truth and honesty either.

I agree on this. As some said on another thread, he will be beholden to the unions, especially, those wonderful bastions of truth and justice for the working people men.

To paraphrase... "When you're used to privilege and centring yourself as standard, then equality and having to follow the same rules as everybody else will feel like genocide."

It's not just men doing this. Plenty of women are equally bought into the whole RSOH narrative.

IMO and IME women enforce the social rules of their group just as much as men. Possibly more so since women's position is often more precarious / dependant on social approval.

NAWALT obviously but I believe ironically having lower social power can mean people are more invested in following "the rules" because we can then believe following the rules provides social safety, allowing us to feel we have agency/control over our lives.

Why are you limiting the possibilities to stupid OR insane?

Genocide would mean being killed, injured, sterilised, or having their children taken away. The most they can claim is an infringement of their right to practise their protected beliefs, which can be a crime against humanity, if it has the effect of causing a belief community to disappear.

(NB any belief which requires the mandatory participation of non-believers is surely not WORIADS, and therefore not protected.)

"(NB any belief which requires the mandatory participation of non-believers is surely not WORIADS, and therefore not protected.)"

That's an interesting point - it hasn't been tested in court, has it?

Yes mine too. They’re not the only ones to affect surprise that people actually think this - see Ian Dunt’s woeful piece recently and Akua Reindorf’s response.

https://withinthelaw.substack.com/p/the-ehrc-code-explained-a-response

The guidance is based on the bizarre notion that services cease to be single-sex if trans people are allowed to use them.

FFS, in what world is this a ‘bizarre notion’? It’s just a fact. They want us to think sex and gender are the not the same thing, except when they want to pretend they are the same thing.

(Of course a trans person can use a single sex space; as long as it’s the space that matches their sex; but that’s not what they mean).

You sum it up well. Have cake, eat cake.

It's unlikely it will be because TRAs don't want to argue on protected belief ground (because their beliefs are true facts!).

I occasionally fantasise about applying for a declaration of incompatibility of the GRA with Article 9 (freedom of belief and conscience).....

(It cuts both ways: forbidding people to 'be trans' would be an Article 9 breach too, and an objectionable manifestation of GC belief.)

They make these wild hyperbolic claims to scare people away from taking necessary action to protect women's rights. In the current climate, where few people care about evidence or "innocent until proven guilty", you don't have to have done anything racist or genocidal; the mere accusation is damaging enough.

This is such a good example of the use of non-factual hyperbole by TRAs to manufacture and maintain a high level of hypervigilance and fear amongst transpeople - especially the more vulnerable ones.

They keep making these clearly unfounded claims about annihilation, marginalisation, and [most insultingly of all to people who experience literal-literal genocide] 'literal genocide'.

These claims are patently and demonstrably untrue, but we live in a post-factual world, where any old guff can be spread over social media to a self-selecting audience, and a certain percentage will believe it, and will defend it against any rational debate, often by totally irrational words and behaviour, and by attacking - sometimes physically - anyone who questions it.

The most serious aspect of this is that it legitimises violence in the minds of the people who, whether through gullibility, vulnerability, or 'Oh great, a new way to bash women that makes us look cool and edgy!', buy into the 'annihilation/genocide' discourse.
It's self-defence. We are fighting for their lives. TERFs are Nazis. They want to kill us all. By any means necessary. The oppressed have always risen up.
We are martyrs. Our violence is justified and brave.

I suspect there's no point in arguing with people who think like that, they are long gone. I think the only way forward is to keep chipping away at the status of the likes of the Lemkin 'Institute', keeping the issue in the sight-line of politicians, challenging bias in the media, and trusting that the general public seem to be quite good at seeing through gender-ID nonsense.

Yes, exactly.

The guidance is based on the bizarre notion that services cease to be single-sex if trans people are allowed to use them

Yes, the bizarre notion that services cease to be women-only if men use them.

How bizarre, how bizarre. Doo do do Doo do do Doo do du du.

Yes, given that these people probably care about Palestine, how do they think the average inhabitant of Gaza would feel about “genocide” being used for a UK code of practice based on a Supreme Court judgment confirming that men are men and women are women?

Like you @MarieDeGournay the mental landscape of TRAs and their allies fascinates me. It would make an amazing psychological study for anyone brave enough.

Yeah, but that study would be actual genocide. Even thinking about doing that study is actual genocide.

There's a significant cohort of TRAs who clearly relish the opportunity to whip the T+ "community" into a frenzy of most-persecuted. They seem to actively enjoy reinforcing the idea of everybody-wants-to-kill-us.
But I'm sure they would deny doing so, or getting a weird kick out of it.

It's bizarre. Why would you want to deliberately frighten and demoralise the community you belong to? Especially when you're aware that that community contains a fair amount of people who are young or mentally fragile?

Picking a thread title off reddit as an example: "With the bathroom bans and identity denial the puberty blocker trial is just an intel gaining / forced detransition camp"
Why would anyone use hyperbolic language like that? It's entirely self-defeating.

It's unlikely it will be because TRAs don't want to argue on protected belief ground (because their beliefs are true facts!).

I'm not so sure about this. I wonder if they would try this route, if only to keep the grift going, once they have reached too many dead ends? It would certainly help keep them relevant for a while, once the rest of the world, including most trans-identified people (I assume), have moved on to "living in the real world." Which I think will happen at some point.

I know that the past 15 years or so has felt like an eternity for most of us heavily involved in it, and watching it unfold in real time, but there was a time when trans activists existed only in the margins and in very small numbers. Now, of course, we know what they were doing under the radar and what they were planning, but most of the human race just lived our lives and fought for causes that seemed to make sense.

Maybe I'm just feeling more optimistic today (despite Labour and Burnham)? Possibly deluded. It's hot.

ed, SPAG

It is rather self defeating to whip trans people up into a frenzy claiming they'll be subjected to genocide, I agree.

Unless the sole motivation is to just whip them up. Which of course it might be. Partly for the lolz, and maybe for the donations? But them being inflamed and riled up just further destroys their credibility.

There's definitely a tipping point between hyperbole making people sit up and take notice, and it jumping the shark and initiating an entire series of eye rolls.

And claiming genocide is definitely one of them.

Oh natch.

Just realised what you did and now have an earworm, damn you.