Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation
- Thread starter Not Dr. Evil
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
The Tony Reed tranny brain trust think the EO doesn't actually do anything.
Last edited:
Nero Fiddled
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2022
Cope and seethe kiddie fuckers.
If only half of that lot comes to fruition it'll rip the guts out of this perverse cult and there's no way it'll ever be allowed back again now the general public have seen the insanity it causes.
If only half of that lot comes to fruition it'll rip the guts out of this perverse cult and there's no way it'll ever be allowed back again now the general public have seen the insanity it causes.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2023
The EO is a glorious thing to behold. But who drafted it? Its language is not that of the conservative Republican, but of the gender critical feminist. Sex based rights, adult human female, erasure of women, immutable, binary, BINGO!
I would put money on the involvement of a high level TERF.
I would put money on the involvement of a high level TERF.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2023
LOL Trump wins 4 more years... Troons most effected.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Rather just push them into the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, depending on what coast they are closest to.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Mentally ill men dreaming of acting out violent fantases.
soup peddler
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
Incredibly brazen desire to enact violence on women. Troons are just the worst kind of men.
Dolly Brooks
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2024
“Tonight I write a new will…” For what, distribution of your 300 Funkopops?
Chickenpolar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2023
soup peddler
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
"HoRmOnEs cHaNgE yOuR BiO sEx" so much cope, you were born male and you will die male. You're a man with a hormone sickness. No amount of self-induced gynecomastia will change how mannish every part of you is and will be forever.
And what's wrong with that? You can't change it, but you don't have to die mad about it jfc. There's nothing wrong with being male, quit deciding to ruin your own life.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Troon logic is so confusing and exhausting.
On the one hand , these cross dressing morons want their arbitrary self declrations of womanhood to be treated as totally heckin valid.
They aslo want any proclamation to the contrary to be treated as presumptively invalid, even if it came from someone with legitimate regulatory and enforcement authority which the original proclamation lacked.
On the one hand , these cross dressing morons want their arbitrary self declrations of womanhood to be treated as totally heckin valid.
They aslo want any proclamation to the contrary to be treated as presumptively invalid, even if it came from someone with legitimate regulatory and enforcement authority which the original proclamation lacked.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2020
Republicans are adopting TERF rhetoric on trannies because it's a lot more compelling than their own arguments which aren't going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced that men in dresses and women with pubestaches are gross.
TRAs go on and on about the TERF to rightwing pipeline, but (while there do seem to be a couple examples of TERFs going rightwing) the opposite seems way more common. Conservatives spend time with TERFs and begin sympathizing with the feminist perspective.
I've never been remotely rightwing, but I also had plenty of dislike for feminists (in large part because libfems were the main type that I was exposed to) and didn't think that misogyny was as widespread in the modern world as they would claim. The trans issue convinced me that misogyny must be a lot more prevalent than I'd realized, especially the difference in how male vs female opponents of trans ideology are treated (even if I still think that a significant part of that difference is women attacking other women, it's still misogyny).
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
We'll get right on that the moment you provide a legitimate basis for self identification contrary to biological reality.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2021
They are shadowboxing anyway because the EO doesn't refer to biological sex but to sex at conception. The argument of it is that male/female depends on no one else observing it, assigning it, or defining it. It is, and there will be no tolerance for people trying to snake other options into the definition.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
What if you were correctly convicted? Would it be ok for you then?
Idiot. Nevermind the fact that there is no such thing as "fully transitioned."
Troons are trying to conflate testosterone production with sex differntiation.
"All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes. Thus, this gene is singularly important in inducing testis development. The production of testosterone at about 9 weeks of gestation results in the development of the reproductive tract and the masculinization (the normal development of male sex characteristics) of the brain and genitalia. "
Sex Begins in the Womb
Idiot. Nevermind the fact that there is no such thing as "fully transitioned."
Troons are trying to conflate testosterone production with sex differntiation.
"All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes. Thus, this gene is singularly important in inducing testis development. The production of testosterone at about 9 weeks of gestation results in the development of the reproductive tract and the masculinization (the normal development of male sex characteristics) of the brain and genitalia. "
Sex Begins in the Womb
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
Ryan's case is awaiting judgement. The morning hearing summary is here and the afternoon one is here. If you're out of the loop, this is Ryan's attempt to force the UK to recognise non binary as his legal sex. He's legally non binary in the state of California, but that's not a thing here. He managed to convince a UK Gender Recognition Panel to issue him with a certificate that states he transitioned to "not specified", although they did say they had no idea what that actually meant, it was the closest they could get to letting him be non binary.
The arguments from the appellant barrister are really weird. Basically, they're trying to say that this is not an attempt to get the UK to formally recognise a non binary sex. Instead, it's about recognising that other countries recognise non binary, and letting Ryan be officially non binary, but then allowing literally every government department to still classify foreign non binary people as either M or F. Where there's a specific requirement in law to be a specific sex - for example, the female genital mutilation act - then maybe they can base it off chromosomal testing(?). The law already recognises situations that don't particularly make sense, like someone who's legally male being recorded as a mother on the birth certificate of the child they birthed.
So basically Ryan's arguing that instead of state functions going "you're legally a male", they should go "you are non binary and valid, but we have to classify you as male on our system". The point of this is because Ryan gets upset that the UK doesn't recognise him as non binary
There's more broadly arguments about things like The Gender Recognition Act 2004, which the appellant barrister claims doesn't specifically exclude non binary because it never defines what gender is, and phrases like "either gender" or "the other gender" could technically mean more than two, and that the brackets in Section 9.1 are illustrative (so by using binary gender as an example, they're opening the possibility of there being other genders).
There's also a point that at the time of legislation there was no legal recognition of non binary genders anywhere in the world (Australia did start allowing for "X" gender in 2003, but only for intersex people). There's an argument citing Lord Wilberforce in Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security (1981). This related to the Abortion Act 1967, which made it legal for doctors to perform abortions, and the role of the mischief rule of statutory interpretation. Basically the abortion act made it legal for doctors to perform abortions, which at the time could only be performed surgically. By the 80s, it was possible for a nurse to perform a drug induced abortion. Wilberforce argued that this would still be illegal, as you can't argue what Parliament would have done if this were possible, you can only look at what was legislated. Therefore since they weren't specifically trying to restrict GRCs to binary gender, Wilberforce's argument would be that the Gender Recognition Act as written can permit recognition of non binary genders. The respondent barrister says Wilberforce's point was about interpreting the will of Parliament but also Wilberforce was a dissenter and that wasn't upheld, so why the hell bring it up in the first place?
The only compelling argument is that the UK does appear to acknowledge, as recognised countries, places like Germany that have provision for non binary. Specifically Germany has a special categorisation for intersex people, and in theory there could be a situation where a German non binary person attempts to get a gender recognition certificate to transition to a binary gender. There's a bit of back and forth about whether the law requires the UK to recognise all genders from a recognised country or whether the UK only needs to recognise male and female from a recognised country. In relation to marriages and civil partnerships the UK does, though international laws, accepts things that don't technically make sense e.g. a married Saudi man transitioning and the UK continuing to recognise the Saudi marriage even though Saudi Arabia doesn't have same sex marriage. Additionally, the UK also does already recognise things that are considered an anathema to UK law, for example Hawaiian reciprocal beneficiary relationships (which are basically a marriage between a widow and her son) or in very limited contexts polygynous marriage for one spouse... so they'd theoretically need some degree of ability to accept Ryan's legally non binary but married. The appellant barrister later makes an argument that the GRC can only be to M or F for Brits but should encompass "gender acquired overseas" for international people.
Ultimately there's a bit of a spat about using Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (protection from discrimination). The respondent barrister motions that it's already been established under Elan-Cane that the UK has no positive obligation to recognise non-binary under the European Convention, and most European countries don't recognise it anyway, and calls out the Appellant Barrister for abandoning arguments about Article 8 when it wasn't going well.
My instinct is that this doesn't look very good for Ryan. Ryan's motivation for fighting this isn't just that he wants to be recognised as non-binary but also that if loses, he's on the hook for all the government's legal fees relating to his case which could be for the tune of half a million pounds (in addition to to the hundreds of thousands he's spent on his own legal representation). Amusingly there's also a reference to Ryan being "less disadvantaged" than cases relating to transsexual passports that have been heard in the past, which is riffing off the previous High Court ruling that classifying Ryan as a man isn't a big deal because he looks like a man.
The arguments from the appellant barrister are really weird. Basically, they're trying to say that this is not an attempt to get the UK to formally recognise a non binary sex. Instead, it's about recognising that other countries recognise non binary, and letting Ryan be officially non binary, but then allowing literally every government department to still classify foreign non binary people as either M or F. Where there's a specific requirement in law to be a specific sex - for example, the female genital mutilation act - then maybe they can base it off chromosomal testing(?). The law already recognises situations that don't particularly make sense, like someone who's legally male being recorded as a mother on the birth certificate of the child they birthed.
So basically Ryan's arguing that instead of state functions going "you're legally a male", they should go "you are non binary and valid, but we have to classify you as male on our system". The point of this is because Ryan gets upset that the UK doesn't recognise him as non binary
The judge points out that if they recognise foreign non binary people, wouldn't the next case be a non binary Brit arguing they should be recognised? The appellant barrister says "well that's not our case". Ryan's focus on this is very much all about Ryan.
There's more broadly arguments about things like The Gender Recognition Act 2004, which the appellant barrister claims doesn't specifically exclude non binary because it never defines what gender is, and phrases like "either gender" or "the other gender" could technically mean more than two, and that the brackets in Section 9.1 are illustrative (so by using binary gender as an example, they're opening the possibility of there being other genders).
The respondent barrister disputes this, saying "either" or "other" must inherently refer to a binary, and the brackets are exhaustive - they're explaining the exclusive implications of a GRC which applies equally to domestic and foreign applicants, and there's no situation where you can get a GRC to get to be something other than a man or a woman. The legislative context is also brought up, cases like Goodwin vs the United Kingdom and Bellinger vs Bellinger - so the Parliamentary intent was very specifically about transsexuals going from one gender to the other, and if they'd intended to include non binary people then they would have made a very clear point of mentioning it in the Act.
There's also a point that at the time of legislation there was no legal recognition of non binary genders anywhere in the world (Australia did start allowing for "X" gender in 2003, but only for intersex people). There's an argument citing Lord Wilberforce in Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security (1981). This related to the Abortion Act 1967, which made it legal for doctors to perform abortions, and the role of the mischief rule of statutory interpretation. Basically the abortion act made it legal for doctors to perform abortions, which at the time could only be performed surgically. By the 80s, it was possible for a nurse to perform a drug induced abortion. Wilberforce argued that this would still be illegal, as you can't argue what Parliament would have done if this were possible, you can only look at what was legislated. Therefore since they weren't specifically trying to restrict GRCs to binary gender, Wilberforce's argument would be that the Gender Recognition Act as written can permit recognition of non binary genders. The respondent barrister says Wilberforce's point was about interpreting the will of Parliament but also Wilberforce was a dissenter and that wasn't upheld, so why the hell bring it up in the first place?
The only compelling argument is that the UK does appear to acknowledge, as recognised countries, places like Germany that have provision for non binary. Specifically Germany has a special categorisation for intersex people, and in theory there could be a situation where a German non binary person attempts to get a gender recognition certificate to transition to a binary gender. There's a bit of back and forth about whether the law requires the UK to recognise all genders from a recognised country or whether the UK only needs to recognise male and female from a recognised country. In relation to marriages and civil partnerships the UK does, though international laws, accepts things that don't technically make sense e.g. a married Saudi man transitioning and the UK continuing to recognise the Saudi marriage even though Saudi Arabia doesn't have same sex marriage. Additionally, the UK also does already recognise things that are considered an anathema to UK law, for example Hawaiian reciprocal beneficiary relationships (which are basically a marriage between a widow and her son) or in very limited contexts polygynous marriage for one spouse... so they'd theoretically need some degree of ability to accept Ryan's legally non binary but married. The appellant barrister later makes an argument that the GRC can only be to M or F for Brits but should encompass "gender acquired overseas" for international people.
Ultimately there's a bit of a spat about using Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (protection from discrimination). The respondent barrister motions that it's already been established under Elan-Cane that the UK has no positive obligation to recognise non-binary under the European Convention, and most European countries don't recognise it anyway, and calls out the Appellant Barrister for abandoning arguments about Article 8 when it wasn't going well.
My instinct is that this doesn't look very good for Ryan. Ryan's motivation for fighting this isn't just that he wants to be recognised as non-binary but also that if loses, he's on the hook for all the government's legal fees relating to his case which could be for the tune of half a million pounds (in addition to to the hundreds of thousands he's spent on his own legal representation). Amusingly there's also a reference to Ryan being "less disadvantaged" than cases relating to transsexual passports that have been heard in the past, which is riffing off the previous High Court ruling that classifying Ryan as a man isn't a big deal because he looks like a man.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
It will be interesting to see if the Trump DOJ goes to the SCOTUS and all inferior courts and withdraw the Government support for troons.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
The tranny issue made me realize in retrospect how absolutely cringe it was to shove all social justice types under the label of "feminism." Or to go full contrarian to them in order to own the SJWs.
It also doesn't help that, like you said, the majority of feminists around the 2000s and 2010s were lib feminists, the Anita Sarkeesian type, those that whine about nonissues. Or the handmaiden type.
Don't get me wrong, I still dislike feminism in general, not just lib feminism. But besides the abortion issue, or the fact that conservatives tend to place more importance on the traditional family than feminists do, misogyny is real, the feminists aren't crying wolf this time.
Nero Fiddled
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2022
Let's hope he loses then.
If he gets his way then I think we can pretty much guarantee there will be a whole whole queue of home grown weirdos demanding they are treated the same way as a pathway to claiming a precedent will have been set.
I suspect that the UK will eventually adopt the US binary gender approach and the more the GRA is played with, the harder it will be to expel this perverse insanity.