Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

The planet is beginning to heal

IMG_3136.jpeg

Sex is biological fact, NHS declares in landmark shift against gender ideology​


Campaigners welcome change to constitution, which will ban trans women from female-only wards, as ‘return to common sense’

Laura Donnelly, HEALTH EDITOR30 April 2024 • 12:01am

The NHS is to declare that sex is a matter of biology in a landmark shift against gender ideology.

Changes to the health service’s written constitution proposed by ministers will for the first time ban trans women from women-only wards, and give women the right to request a female doctor for intimate care.

The NHS constitution, a document that aims to set out the principles and values of the health service and legal rights for patients and staff, was last updated in 2015. It has to be updated at least every 10 years by the Secretary of State.

Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed the significant shift, which comes after years of wrangling and follows accusations that the health service had been captured by “gender ideology”.

In 2021, NHS guidance said trans patients could be placed in single-sex wards based on the gender with which they identified.

The new constitution will state: “We are defining sex as biological sex.”

The clarification means that the right to a single-sex ward means patients would “not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite biological sex”.

Until now, no commitment was made to biological sex, meaning some female patients complained that they were forced to share sleeping space with trans women – those who are born male but identify as female.

Women’s rights campaigners said the move was a “return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.”

However, NHS leaders raised concerns that the health service was being “dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate”.

The changes to the constitution are a further indication of a change in attitudes after the Cass review into the NHS’s gender identity services found evidence that allowing children to change gender was built on weak foundations.

Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, said allowing “social transitioning” for young people – when they are treated as the opposite gender – could “change their trajectory” and lead to them pursuing a potentially damaging medical pathway in later life.

The updates to the constitution will also include the introduction of a duty to help patients get back to work and embed “Martha’s Rule” into the framework of the health service.

This follows pledges by Victoria Atkins, the Health Secretary, to give families the right to access a rapid review from an outside team if a patient is deteriorating. It is named after 13-year-old Martha Mills, who died in 2021 after medics missed signs of sepsis and failed to heed warnings from her parents that their daughter’s condition was getting worse.

Women will also be given the right to request that intimate care is provided, where reasonably possible, by someone of the same biological sex.

It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male.

The proposed changes will also see discrimination requirements updated, with the word gender replaced with sex.

Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic, meaning that a transgender patient could be given their own room in a hospital to protect their right to a single-sex service.

The document also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms like “chestfeeding” and “people who give birth”.

In February, Ms Atkins highlighted her concerns, telling The Telegraph: “We need to be making this robust case to refuse to wipe women out of the conversation.”

On Tuesday, she said: “We want to make it abundantly clear that if a patient wants same-sex care they should have access to it wherever reasonably possible.

“We have always been clear that sex matters and our services should respect that.

“By putting this in the NHS constitution we’re highlighting the importance of balancing the rights and needs of all patients to make a healthcare system that is faster, simpler and fairer for all.”

Maya Forstater, chief executive of gender critical group Sex Matters, said: “It is excellent news that the NHS constitution is being revised to put ‘sex’ in its rightful place – at the heart of principle 1, which sets out that the NHS must treat everyone with equality and respect for their human rights.

“The confusion between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in official policies like the NHS constitution is what has enabled women’s rights to be trampled over in the name of transgender identities.

“Sex, of course, is a matter of biology, not identity, and it is welcome that the NHS is now spelling this out in relation to single-sex accommodation and intimate care.”

Ms Forstater said too many female patients seeking that intimate care be given by a woman had been pressured into accepting a trans-identifying male instead.

“Healthcare providers have become confused and frightened by the idea that a gender recognition certificate, or even just a personal identity claim, overrides other people’s rights when it comes to same-sex care from healthcare professionals.”

She said the shift was “simply a return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.”

Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents healthcare leaders, said its members would review the proposals in detail.

However, he added: “What is absolutely clear at this stage is that a focus on high-quality care for all is maintained and that the NHS is not dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate. This is not where energies should be focused.”

Mr Taylor said staff worked hard to show fairness and compassion towards all patients.

“In particular, groups of people, including trans and non-binary patients, continue to receive some of the worst health outcomes of any group in our society and NHS leaders and staff will want to do all they can to support these patients, as well as their trans and non-binary staff to reduce inequalities.

“Whatever changes are eventually introduced following the consultation need to be clear and workable for NHS staff, who should not expect to have to interpret ambiguous guidance at a local level.”

The eight-week consultation will be the first stage of a review of the constitution.

The Government will consider responses from everyone, including the public, clinicians and medical professionals, patients, carers and organisations representing patients and staff and health stakeholders, before publishing the consultation response and the new NHS constitution.

Louise Ansari, chief executive of Healthwatch England said: “The NHS constitution plays a crucial role in shaping the culture of our NHS and helping the public to know their rights.

“Since the NHS constitution launched, it has helped to shift the balance of power from services towards patients and their families. But, with only a third of people knowing their rights, there is still a long way to go.

“Given the challenges our NHS faces, a conversation to reaffirm and raise awareness of the most important rights to the public has never been more timely.

“We urge everyone to take part in the consultation and have their say. This is your opportunity to send a clear message about the rights you hold most dear.”
 
No, it does not. McNamara is a known crackpot within the gender pseudoscience cult.

Screenshot 2024-05-12 135331.png


More winnning!

South Carolina lawmakers gave final approval Thursday to legislation banning gender-affirming care for minors, sending the measure to Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who is expected to sign it into law.

South Carolina’s House Bill 4624 prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries to transgender minors, though youths receiving care prior to Aug. 1 will be allowed a “tapering off period.” Care must cease entirely by Jan. 31.

The measure also prohibits public funding from being used “directly or indirectly” for gender-affirming care, which some LGBTQ advocates have said will prevent transgender adults in South Carolina from using programs such as Medicaid to help cover the cost of treatment.

South Carolina gender-affirming care ban sent to governor’s desk

JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) - You may remember the national conversations about transgender bathroom bans several years ago. Now, Mississippi is passing a bathroom bill.

Supporters say its legislation is designed to protect women and girls.

The SAFER Act stands for “Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly Act.”

“I do not know of anybody in this body that does not want to protect our women, our teenage daughters, or our young granddaughters are young boys, young men for that matter as well,” said Rep. Joey Hood.

The bill states “There are only two sexes, and every individual is either male or female.”

“If you were born a male, you would go to the male bathroom,” said Rep. Hood. “If you were a female, you would go to the female bathroom or the unisex bathroom.”

“Are they potentially opening themselves up for civil liability from using a restroom in a public place?” asked Ramey-Gray.

But they go beyond just bathrooms.
“Provides for protections for male-female safe spaces, including restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, living spaces,” noted Sen. Josh Harkins.

Some previous versions would’ve applied to more spaces, as those versions referenced public buildings. However, the final version has a more limited scope.

“It is applicable to have it to community colleges and public schools,” added Hood.

If someone violates the policy, they could be sued. But if it’s signed into law, it would protect the school from those suits. Some House members questioned if the bill actually accomplished anything. Rep. Joey Hood says he’s hoping they can pass stronger language next session.

SAFER Act passed by Mississippi Legislature, awaiting action from Governor
 
Last edited:
18 states sue to overturn Bostock v. Clayton County

WASHINGTON — A group of 18 Republican-led states, including Utah, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from enforcing broad legal protections for transgender workers.

The 18 states filed the complaint in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, late Monday. They said the federal workplace bias agency lacked the power to assert that federal law requires employers to use transgender workers' preferred pronouns and allow them to use bathrooms that match their gender identity.

The commission last month updated its guidance on workplace harassment for the first time in 25 years, including positions that reflect a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that said discriminating against gay and transgender workers is a form of unlawful sex bias.

The commission in the guidance said denying accommodations to transgender workers amounts to workplace harassment based on sex.

But the states in their lawsuit said federal law is much narrower, protecting workers from being fired because they are transgender but not requiring employers to take affirmative steps to accommodate them.

"EEOC has no authority to resolve these highly controversial and localized issues, which are properly reserved for Congress and the states," they said.

Utah, 17 other states, sue over federal policy on transgender workers
 
The People’s Republic of Ontario compensates an indigenous transwoman for trauma because hairless legs are a human right or something, and hairy legs destroyed his life.

IMG_3652.jpeg

Transgender woman refused leg wax by Windsor, Ont., salon awarded $35K by human rights tribunal​

Salon owner is challenging the ruling, which lawyer calls 'deeply flawed'​

desmond-brown.jpg

Desmond Brown, Kerri Breen · CBC News · Posted: Jun 20, 2024 4:43 PM EDT | Last Updated: June 21

Warning: This story contains a reference to attempted suicide.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has awarded $35,000 in damages to an Indigenous transgender woman who was refused a leg wax at a salon in Windsor six years ago.

However, the owner of the salon is challenging the ruling, which his lawyer calls "deeply flawed."
The decision comes six years after the woman contacted Mad Wax Windsor Inc. by phone to book an appointment. She alleged there was a string of discriminatory and retaliatory behaviour by the salon and owner Jason Carruthers.

The woman was only identified by the alias A.B. and the decision did not provide further details of her background.

A.B. filed a human rights application at the tribunal after speaking to a staff member and then Carruthers in March 2018.

The adjudicator, Karen Dawson, sided with the woman, determining A.B. was misgendered by Carruthers.

In their phone call, the woman testified, Carruthers told her there was no one on staff who would be comfortable providing services to "someone like you." Carruthers denied using that phrase or misgendering A.B., but said he didn't have a staff member who could provide "male waxing services."

"The applicant's evidence about the telephone call was clear and consistent throughout her testimony," Dawson wrote in the May 23 decision. "By contrast ... the individual respondent's evidence changed on key points when challenged on cross-examination. For these reasons, where their evidence differs, I prefer the evidence of the applicant."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/transgender-windsor-school-policy-1.6885815
The HRTO ordered Carruthers, the salon and another business to pay $35,000 in damages to A.B., plus interest, and that both Carruthers and salon staff undertake online human rights training.

In welcoming the tribunal's decision, A.B. said no one can silence her or the facts laid out by the tribunal.

"This decision brings me some peace," she said in a media release. "It helps tell the story of the discrimination I faced and the steps taken to escalate that discrimination and harassment against me."

We feel this is an incredibly significant case for trans people and we really do think that this is a move in the right direction.- Megan Evans Maxwell, HRLSC lawyer
In an email to CBC, Carruthers called the ruling "unjust" and said he's "shocked by the awarded amount as a small business owner."

"However, this is a legal matter which I will let my lawyer comment on as he is better able to provide information."

The human rights decision states Carruthers acknowledged he may have asked the applicant about her genitalia and assumed she was seeking a Brazilian wax, even though, under cross-examination, Carruthers said A.B. did not indicate she wanted a Brazilian.

The adjudicator rejected testimony that A.B. threatened Carruthers with "trouble with the tribunal" or a "media circus."

Following A.B.'s human rights complaint, Carruthers issued a release and was quoted in the media as referring to a "male Brazilian wax" regarding the service A.B. sought. The adjudicator found the outreach to the media constituted reprisal for the human rights complaint.

A.B. testified the respondent's remarks to media outlets "opened up a non-consensual public conversation as to the status of her physical transition," which was very traumatizing, the decision states.

A.B. also testified she attempted suicide at one point, relapsed into substance use, and ultimately lost her job and her marriage.

Salon owner challenging $35K fine​

Raymond Colautti, Carruthers's lawyer, said the ruling is "deeply flawed and must be set aside."
Colautti has filed an application for judicial review, which is akin to an appeal of the human rights ruling.

The application says there was no evidence presented to support testimony about harm suffered by A.B. and the damages awarded "significantly" exceed "the damages awarded in more serious cases."
The application states it was A.B. who raised the issue of genitalia on the phone call and any further comments on her genitalia from Carruthers were "influenced" by that.

Further, the application states, Carruthers went to the media only after A.B. allegedly threatened a "media circus" and then posted a video about Mad Wax to the Facebook page of a transgender organization.

Lawyer believes ruling will be upheld if reviewed​

A.B. was represented by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) — an independent organization that provides free legal advice and support services to people who have experienced discrimination or harassment under Ontario's Human Rights Code.

Megan Evans Maxwell, A.B.'s legal counsel from the HRLSC, said she had not yet received the application for judicial review but that the tribunal's ruling was reasonable and she believes it will be upheld.

Evans Maxwell said her client is hopeful the decision will lead to societal change. She said the case is about fairness for trans people, noting A.B. was seeking what would be a routine service for a cisgender person to receive.

"We feel this is an incredibly significant case for trans people and we really do think that this is a move in the right direction," she said.

link | archive
 
Arizona's governor has just vetoed a bill requiring insurers to pay for detransition procedures.

Arizona Fails Detransitioners (Archive)

Democrats once billed themselves as defenders of the powerless against the oppressive forces of industry. Last week, Arizona’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, protected the politically powerful gender-medicine industry from its victims.

Hobbs vetoed legislation that would have made insurers and health-care providers financially liable for costs associated with reversing or mitigating the harms inflicted on patients in the name of “gender-affirming care.” Currently, young people who have variously undergone surgical castration, mastectomies, and endocrine disruptions, only to realize that what they needed instead was mental-health support, are often left to shoulder the resulting medical bills themselves.

Those who detransition do so for a range of reasons. A survey of detransitioners cited in the influential Cass Review found that the most common were respondents’ acceptance that their dysphoria was “related to other issues” and having experienced “health concerns.” Detransitioners face significant challenges, not least scorn and ostracism from the “community” that once vowed to be their “chosen family.”

Despite growing attention to the phenomenon of detransition from researchers and medical authorities, the International Classification of Diseases, used by most public and private insurers, offers no billing codes for the process—despite having codes for medical transition and even for obscure events such as being bitten by an orca. This critical gap in insurance coverage results in the revictimization of those who were betrayed by doctors in their hour of need.
Part of the reason trans activists claim that hardly anyone detransitions is that there are no insurance records keeping track of them.
Arizona Senate Bill 1511 would have been a small and sensible step toward helping detransitioners. Hobbs, however, vetoed the bill. Her veto statement included a single line, laconically explaining that SB 1511 is “unnecessary and would create a privacy risk for patients.”

Her privacy concern is nonsensical. The legislation would not publicly identify or otherwise compromise the personal information of patients who receive transition or detransition services. As for the legislation being “unnecessary,” a word Hobbs seems to have borrowed from a statement on the proposed law by the Human Rights Campaign, this claim is misleading. While detransitioners in Arizona can have their procedures covered if they retain a “gender dysphoria” diagnosis—the mismatch between one’s actual and perceived sex—coverage is unavailable for those who come to terms with their sex and thus lose the diagnosis. This is an increasingly common experience around the globe. A recent study from Germany found that nearly two-thirds of individuals ages five to 24 who received a gender dysphoria diagnosis had lost it within five years.

Another salutary effect of the vetoed law: it would have required insurers to document detransition information. Officials don’t know how many individuals medically detransition, partly because the absence of corresponding billing codes means that insurers and regulators don’t collect comprehensive data. Still, there are good clues that the number is not trivial and may be rising. One study observed that 30 percent of patients who started hormonal treatment ceased doing so within four years. And in the United Kingdom and Sweden, health officials who radically scaled back pediatric gender services cited clinicians’ concerns about detransitioners in their decisions.
The governor's motives may be personal:
Democrats like Governor Hobbs who have deferred uncritically to the WPATH-based consensus on youth gender medicine have put themselves in a bind, but whether they are aware of the broken chain of trust in this area of medicine is another question.

More plausibly, Hobbs’s decision was driven by electoral incentives. Powerful lobby groups like the Human Rights Campaign have shifted their focus from gay rights to trans issues on the pretense that the two subjects are connected. While the detransition bill initially had bipartisan support in the Arizona Senate Health and Human Services committee, one Democrat pulled support after state transgender groups publicly opposed it. Democrats who recognize the harms of sex “change” procedures on young people vote their conscience at their own electoral risk.

A final and potentially more disturbing possibility is that Hobbs was influenced by her husband’s (Patrick Goodman’s) reported involvement as a therapist at the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Gender Support Program, a transgender clinic that offers kids the type of procedures that eventually produce detransitioners. (While the hospital seems to have scrubbed the information from its website, it listed Goodman as a “provider” as of December 16, 2023).
 
Democrats who recognize the harms of sex “change” procedures on young people vote their conscience at their own electoral risk.
I doubt this. It'll hurt your fundraising (which upsets the Party) but I guarantee that the people who actually show up at campaign events will accept a moderate position on this even if it's "I'm just not sure and want to be cautious when it comes to children" giving you wiggle room to vote for it under different political circumstances. I'd actually bet you could say nothing if nobody ever brings it up at anything. It's not like your Republican opponent can use it against you.
 
Sall Glover is not holding back. With a crowdfunded warchest of nearly half a million, she is mounting a simple defence: that’s a man, baby. She’s even calling an evolutionary biologist to testify, along with terf heroines Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock. (I kid. The defence is a bit more complex. But yes, she refuses to call Roxy a woman).
The verdict came down this morning. Sall lost. Not only did the judge award Roxy Tickle $10k in damages, he also ordered Sall to pay Tickle’s costs. At least he didn’t get awarded the $200k he was asking for. In his judgement he claimed there is precedent in Australia that people can change sex and that Tickle is a woman. So now it will be off to the high court and potentially cost Sall up to $1m to defend.

ETA: While in Australia court proceedings are not televised, there is precedent in Australia for high court proceedings to be publically streamed if there is enough international interest. eg George Pell’s appeal was streamed due to its international interest. Hopefully Sall will get granted leave to appeal, and just maybe, this case has enough international interest to actually be publically streamed. 🌈 I know, but anything is possible with significant public interest.

Sure, this case is not about the third highest ranking priest in the Vatican being convicted of pedophilia, but it is going to be all about defining absolutely What is a Woman! Is it identity or biology that defines a “female” or a “woman”
 
Last edited:
The verdict came down this morning. Sall lost. Not only did the judge award Roxy Tickle $10k in damages, he also ordered Sall to pay Tickle’s costs. At least he didn’t get awarded the $200k he was asking for. In his judgement he claimed there is precedent in Australia that people can change sex and that Tickle is a woman. So now it will be off to the high court and potentially cost Sall up to $1m to defend.
I see no successful appeal here. The law says you can’t discriminate against anyone for any reason on the basis of gender identity. It also says gender identity means whatever you want. The defence is that this ogre is actually a man - i do not see how that is relevant to what is written in the law.

Of course, this also means that non gender-neutral toilets should not be allowed. Of course that will never be tested in court because judges like Bromwich know that would get the whole law changed.
 
I see no successful appeal here.
I don’t recall the actual details, but it has to do with the amended (by the Gillard government) Sex Discrimination Act, and that amendment going against some international convention that Australia is a party to. Sall Grover knew the case that was just decided was most likely going to fail, but it was a step that had to be taken before she could challenge the Sex Discrimination Act in the High Court.

The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts.
 
I’m about 4 years late on this, but hey, someone might as well have made this:
View attachment 6408226
To be fair, in San Francisco Weiner went on a crusade against the nudists. I don't know why he hated the nudists so much since he clearly doesn't mind every other form of sexual degeneracy, but he pretty much single-handedly ended the long tradition of naked old men walking around San Francisco.
I don't particularly mind not seeing naked old men as much anymore, but Weiner seriously seemed to have it out for them in a way that seems entirely incongruous with everything else he's done. I guess that he just figured that they were less development-friendly than trooned-out children.
 
To be fair, in San Francisco Weiner went on a crusade against the nudists. I don't know why he hated the nudists so much since he clearly doesn't mind every other form of sexual degeneracy, but he pretty much single-handedly ended the long tradition of naked old men walking around San Francisco.
I don't particularly mind not seeing naked old men as much anymore, but Weiner seriously seemed to have it out for them in a way that seems entirely incongruous with everything else he's done. I guess that he just figured that they were less development-friendly than trooned-out children.
That's strange, cause there's photos of him in S&M gear on a parade, out in the open. I'd think it's damn near the same as nudists.
 
That's strange, cause there's photos of him in S&M gear on a parade, out in the open. I'd think it's damn near the same as nudists.

I daresay it's even worse. The fetish gear people can't even pretend that it's not sexual.

The right thing to do is to be consistent and say they're both retarded/disgusting.
 
That's strange, cause there's photos of him in S&M gear on a parade, out in the open. I'd think it's damn near the same as nudists.
Like I said, his hatred for the nudists seems completely out of place considering everything else about him. The only thing I can think of is that he didn't like the fact that they were all old men with normal old men bodies (I don't think I've ever seen one who was young, thin or muscular. Every single one had a typical old man body).
 
Back