Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

[Not Really Here]

"The concept of "sex-based rights" is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. You do not gain rights based on which sex you belong too. If you believe in equality, no sex is entitled to more rights than any other. "

I remember reading almost those exact words in feminist writing(Freidan IIRC) right before I was forced to become a criminal, or register with the government just in case they need to get me killed.

 

[Chickenpolar]

The Blue Sky cope and seething is masterful. My fav:

Link
Skyview archive

If you don't have the science on your side and you don't have the law on your side what do you have? Personal metaphysics?

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

TERF Island Supreme Court continues its genocide with an unanimous decision that yes, "woman" refers to biological sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

Trans activists' reaction: "We are devastated, and in tears," says the director of the advocacy group TransActual UK. If trans women can’t be in women-only spaces, “it means we can’t participate in society".

You can participate in the restrooms, changing rooms, etc. of society that men are allowed in. Unless you are a pooner.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Lots and lots of psychotic rage.

 

[Ace888Ace]

I cut this reason out from my previous post because it wasn't directly relevant to natal women, but it's kind of the basis for the later reasons and it's also interesting in its own regard (emphasis mine):

(xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC greater rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC (paras 198-203).

Essentially, recognising GRCs as legitimate would create an upper-class of trans people entitled to greater legal protections (i.e. the ones available to biological sex as well as to trans people specifically) than other trans people, and because you obviously can't tell on sight between a trans woman with a special certificate and one without one, you would have had to ask "are you legally considered a real woman?", which would inevitably lead to a tantrum. So this is, technically, being done for their own good. Not that any of them will acknowledge it, as it would impede their gold medal run of the Oppression Olympics.

 

[Excited Eraser]

The UK has also been one of the first countries to completely ban youth 'transition' (outside of scientific clinical trials) based on a properly conducted scientific review. Things are moving in the right direction on that front at least.

 

[AssignedEva]

@Londo (Tor isn't letting me select-quote)

You may also start seeing legal cases brought forward against public and private entities where there has been an instance of punishment or speech suppression for not saying women can have cocks.

There's potential that this could have wider reaching impact than it first appears. Sex discrimination is unlawful unless covered under the exemptions listed in Part 7 of Schedule 3

Separate services for the sexes​

26(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing separate services for persons of each sex if—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing separate services differently for persons of each sex if—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective,
(b)the extent to which the service is required by one sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex, and
(c)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Single-sex services​

27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.

(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.

(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.

(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.

(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.

(This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

If the Equality Act is stating that "sex" only relates to biological sex, then the exemptions become shaky. If you run a service that allows women and trans women access, the Equality Act would not consider this to be a single sex space, since there's already biological males in that space, and therefore you cannot engage in sex discrimination towards males. I'm not 100% sure this is actually the case, but it is the reading I'm seeing. It ties back into the root cause of this entire case, which was Scotland trying to include transgender women in their all-women shortlists and a 50% female target for non executive posts in Scottish public authority bodies;

The group-based rights and duties are concerned with identifying the shared needs and disadvantages that affect women as a group, or trans people as a group. If the first group were to include men and the second group people who are not trans people, it is unlikely that they would have the same needs or share the same disadvantages that would justify their inclusion in the particular group. Equally, the fact that some members of the group do not wish to benefit from a particular measure designed to reduce, say under-representation of that group, does not mean that they do not share the same needs and disadvantages as the group in question.

In other words, it might not just be saying "you can choose to view trans women as men and thus discount them from positive action initiatives for women" but instead "you must view trans women as men and discount them from positive action initiatives for women".

 

[Sperglord666]

'only do endless gatekeeping' - that was the troon endorsed gold standard of care until fairly recently. Before the early 2010s explosion there were a series of 'steps' in transition that had to be done in order, under a doctor's supervision, with the presumption that the patient should not proceed to the next step unless s/he could demonstrate it was necessary and s/he was healthy enough to handle it. It worked way better than the current system - gatekeeping kept regret rates low and presumption of denial made doctors focus on quality of care over patient volume.

Only a fetishist or a groomer would have a problem with this approach . . . wait nevermind, answered my own question there.

Yeah the problems only really started when the barrier to entry became putting a bow in your hair and saying "I is a woman". And their response to people bringing up the obvious problems this would create generally boiled down to " well that just doesn't happen transphobe". Unfortunately it took society watching several of their children getting mentally and physically molested before they dropped their rose tinted glasses for a second and decided that enough was enough.

 

[Miriam Margoyles]

Lots and lots of psychotic rage.

View attachment 7228920

So, as well as trying to mansplain womanhood, I see Big Al's trying to Yanksplain how British law and governance works. Yeah, OK, Al, Kier Starmer is such a hardline gender critical fascist that before the election he genuinely stammered his way through a really mealy mouthed assertion that, ackshually, in certain circumstances, it's perfectly normal for a woman to have a cock and bollocks, ackshually, and saying that only a woman can have a cervix is something that should never be said.

Shove it up your amhole, you mong. You're wrong and you're a grotesquely ugly freak.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

"Factually wrong" to say that men are not women.

 

[Not Really Here]

@AssignedEva A tinkering singularity occurred.

Null was trying to change the themes a little, and entered a frenetic codemonkey tinkering state sometime last weekend. The inline quote feature is in quantum flux, until the tinkering singularity ends(randomly broken/working at random times).

Null is observing Lent, tomorrow he gets access to caffeine for the first time since March 5th.

Also 4chan got hacked by ZoomerChan, and now when new information drops we suddenly get an extra 3-4 thousand people for hours, along with new account problems.
/news end

Thread tax: The problem with the UK ruling, is that any government could just add the troons back in via amending definitions. If you're stuck in the UK, you should be chatting up Labor. Congratulate them on getting a ruling, allowing them to claim 'not our fault' and dump the TiM's.

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

BlueSky is a goldmine right now.

"Waking up to devastating news for British trans people facing a truly awful ruling from their Supreme Court. This follows a manufactured campaign of lies, panic, and ignorance "

Yeah, from trannies.

"The concept of "sex-based rights" is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. You do not gain rights based on which sex you belong too. If you believe in equality, no sex is entitled to more rights than any other. "

Wut? But trans rights are human rights, right?

I know everybody else here already is asking the same sort of questions, but if sex-based rights aren't a thing why in the world should gender based rights be a thing?

 

[monstrous bubo]

Thread tax: The problem with the UK ruling, is that any government could just add the troons back in via amending definitions. If you're stuck in the UK, you should be chatting up Labor. Congratulate them on getting a ruling, allowing them to claim 'not our fault' and dump the TiM's.

That’s sort of true, but it would require two things:

1. a proper review of the Act to ensure any amendments don’t create other problems, and
2. the political will and capital.

Re 1, the Supreme Court didn’t just say the current Act did not includes trans women as women, based on the reports (I haven’t read the judgment yesterday, so I could be wrong). The extracts above suggest that if the definitions were as expansive as the pro-trans contended, it would render the Act a nonsense in parts. Hence my hot take that a quick change to definitions would just create more problems, and proper review would be required to accommodate the trans-women-are-women party.

As for 2, the PM stated last year that biological sex is a thing. He didn’t overturn the previous Government’s move to put trannies into men’s prisons. Trannies and their girlcocks have been moved to men’s prisons. It also has as its Minister for Health a gay man, Wes Streeting, who is so over the T. He kicked troons out of women’s wards last year. So the will isn’t there. But they don’t have the political capital either. The Labor Government has a bunch of political problems coming out of the last Budget, industrial action, rising taxes, tariff insanity etc and a general air of the shambolic. Spending time and money to enshrine very unpopular luxury beliefs into law would win no votes, and do nothing to stem the bleeding amongst voters who would just like their bins emptied, their wages not taxed away and the health system to work.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

"This is all JK Rowling's fault" - Seething Professional Trannies



Not seeing a problem with any of this.

 

[diroama]

This ruling has huge implications. Troons have revelled in the murky ambiguity of a GRC conveying a "change of sex for all purposes" while the courts have played along by making rulings that conflate 'discriminating' against someone for not being a man or a woman with discriminating against someone for undergoing gender reassignment.

The plain language of the EA is clear: you cant refuse somebody service because theyre planning to get their cock chopped off, but somebody with their cock chopped off cant expect the same treatment as a real woman. This is how the EA was written but it has been misinterepted by trannies and the courts as the above.

This ruling puts a stop to all of that. Yes you can get a GRC but it makes little difference because it doesnt actually change your sex. Yes you can say you are a woman, but it doesnt mean you actually are one. People with half a brain or more have always said that, and now the highest court in the land has confirmed it.

Troons are fucked. All the advances they have made elsewhere have relied on public apathy. They didnt get far enough in the UK before the public woke up to what they were up to. Transgenderism is politically toxic - no party is going to bat for them.

Fascinating to see what happens next in the Peggie tribunal.

 

[OJ Simpson]

BlueCry really is where reality goes to die a painful and gruesome death. Whenever I see a youtube channel that links that in their socials it's an auto-block because to say they're a couple ingredients short of a ham sandwich is an understatement.

Trannies had it all; less than a fraction of a percent of the entire population of the world, media conglomerates carrying water for them, social media platforms censoring pushback to their sick and malformed ideology, service providers shutting down wrong-think websites (hi hunchback), and in some cases even the legal system in backwater places like Canada.

But NONE of that matters now because the general population has rebelled and the legal system (in some places) are finally codifying reality.

Has there ever, and I mean ever, been a more protected class of fucking freaks and degenerates?

What we've gone through in roughly the past decade is effectively the movie Freaks but in this version we've not been allowed to point out that there's something seriously wrong here.

 

[diroama]

Jolyon Maugham has highlighted the judge's comments that a transwoman could still bring a case for sex discrimination as a woman if the discriminator perceived him to be a real woman and this is being picked up on as some sort of "gotcha".

It's nothing of the sort: the EA has always, from the very start, applied to anyone whether they have the specific characteristic or not.

If you're an effeminite, camp man who is heterosexual and you get discriminated against for being gay, it does not matter if you are gay or not.

Being discriminated against for being a woman is just the same - it doesnt not matter if you are a woman or not.

This is an absolutely basic tenet of the EA and it shows what a dishonest fuckwit that silly grifting cunt is.

 

[The Morning Visitor]

A thought occurred to me:

The SAVE act passed the house and is going to the senate, and people are worried about it making voting more difficult for married women, on account of last name not matching their birth certificates and needing to provide a marriage license to justify the name change. Trannies have no such documents to justify their chosen names, correct? If this passes, does that mean US federal elections are effectively "trans need not apply"?

 

[A.P. Hill]

The Blue Sky cope and seething is masterful. My fav:
View attachment 7228874
Link
Skyview archive

If you don't have the science on your side and you don't have the law on your side what do you have? Personal metaphysics?

Oh, so they're just admitting they changed "the science" to support their retardation.

 

[Londo]

Here's how that media control is going for the troons. Lol. Lmao even.