💬 Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Anasa Tristis said:
Did UN Women get the memo? They were all TWAW not so long ago. I nosed around their site (unwomen.org) it looks like even their "intersectional feminism" page was scrubbed of gender identity references. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, they still "identify" heavily with "gender equality," as opposed to "women's rights." And I still think it's fucking hilarious and/or horrific that they actually literally called themselves "unwomen." Maybe in non-English-speaking countries it doesn't have the same implications. 🤷‍♂️
 
Lentil Soup said:
The UN Human Rights Council has released a report recommending that "woman" should be defined by sex. PDF Available Here

The report goes into the problems that legislating based on gender identity has caused, including everything from accurate reporting of violence against women to sports leagues. It's just the UN, so it doesn't really change anything but it's an interesting sign of the times.
Click to expand...
Wait, now I’m confused!
IMG_3325.webp
Can’t remember which gender critical person spoke at the UN (I think it was Billboard Chris but not 100% sure) but they said they got a thank you or two from people who couldn’t/wouldn’t speak out, wish I could remember more from the interview. Can’t wait to see the REEing over this one.

Edit: found the video where he talks about this, it’s a short clip but worth the watch if you’re interested. UN section from 45:55-52:24
 
Last edited:
"illegitimate"

Alex and Mark are basically retarded and can't read.

Screenshot 2025-07-14 171444.webp

"Shall be impemented consistent with applicable law" means there is nothing for the trial court to enjoin because the order never steps outside the boundaries of the law.

Stated differently, this clause means that the executive order does not do anything that the law prohibits.

Screenshot 2025-07-14 171649.webp

ADDED

Male to "female" troons have nothing but contempt for actual women.

Screenshot 2025-07-14 193342.webp

"Julie"

bafkreiawrlzd4nekqhheiab6waqc2h2sejx5xkuqcumhsdo54rwj3i5rie.webp
 
Last edited:
Not Dr. Evil said:
In order to preserve your own free speech, you ought to be defending the rights of trans people to call themselves who they are. "
Click to expand...
They are so narcissistic. No one cares what you call yourself, but you can’t compel other people to call you something. That restricts their freedom of speech you fucking muppets.
 
Stabby_Pencil said:
They really need to stop attaching themselves to the LGB like the parasites they are. It is not attacking LGB rights, it is merely curtailing the overreach from the insane freakshow that is the TQ+.
Click to expand...
Trannys are nothing more than parasites.
They "attach" themselves to any passing group in the hope that it'll bring them the support they need to stay relevant.
Like everything about them, it's just fakery, misappropriation and outright lies.
 

Trans changing room row nurse cleared of misconduct as tribunal resumes​


Link | Archive

Updated 27 minutes ago
A nurse who complained about sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor has been cleared of gross misconduct following disciplinary proceedings by NHS Fife.

Sandie Peggie was suspended from her role last year after she objected to Dr Beth Upton, who is a transgender woman, using female facilities.

The nurse had faced allegations of misconduct, failures of patient care and misgendering Dr Upton.

NHS Fife said an internal hearing found there was "insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct".
News of the decision came on the eve of the resumption of an employment tribunal raised by Ms Peggie against her employer.

The tribunal has resumed in Dundee after a five-month break in proceedings.

Ms Peggie claims her treatment was unlawful under the 2010 Equality Act and has brought a case against the health board and Dr Upton.

NHS Fife and the doctor are defending their actions – at a cost to the public purse so far of at least £220,000 – arguing that they complied with NHS policy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75rxpnqx9yo
Ms Peggie, who has worked at NHS Fife for more than 30 years, told the tribunal she had felt uncomfortable around Dr Upton in a changing room at Kirkcaldy's Victoria Hospital on three occasions between August and December 2023.

She said the issue came to a head on Christmas Eve when Dr Upton started to undress in front of her.

Ms Peggie told the tribunal she had felt "embarrassed and intimidated".

The pair then exchanged words - although the details of their conversation are disputed.

After the exchange, Dr Upton complained to NHS Fife about Ms Peggie's behaviour and the nurse was suspended on 3 January 2024.

In her evidence, Ms Peggie said she had "felt more shocked than anything" when she learned there was a complaint against her.

The board has described Ms Peggie's case as "unnecessary and vexatious" while Dr Upton has accused the nurse of bullying and harassment.

"I'm not interested in vengeance and I'm not interested in retribution – I'm interested in justice," the doctor told the tribunal.

"Trans people are not predators by nature of being themselves."

The tribunal sat for 10 days in February and was then adjourned until now.

The disciplinary hearing, which had also been scheduled for February, was postponed at the request of Ms Peggie's legal team.

On Wednesday morning her lawyer Margaret Gribbon, confirmed in a statement released by Sex Matters, that she had been cleared of all allegations.

Ms Gribbon said: "Sandie is relieved and delighted that this 18-month long internal process has concluded and cleared her of all allegations."

NHS Fife confirmed no formal sanction had been imposed on the nurse and that the review panel "concluded that a facilitated reflective practice discussion would be appropriate".

The health board added: "We remain committed to fostering a respectful, inclusive, and safe working environment for all of our staff and patients."

Supreme court ruling​

The wider issue of gender has provoked years of debate in Scotland.

This includes arguments about the case of a transgender rapist known as Isla Bryson and an attempt by politicians in Edinburgh – ultimately blocked by Westminster – to make it easier to legally change gender.

A pivotal moment came in April when the UK Supreme Court clarified the law on gender, unanimously ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under the Equality Act.

"The concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man," wrote the judges, adding that "the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words" was self-explanatory and required "no further explanation".

The 88-page judgment was a repudiation of the SNP's interpretation of the law.

The Scottish government responded that it had acted in good faith by arguing in court that trans women were women.

Ms Peggie has since called on NHS Fife to respond to the Supreme Court by acting immediately to "stop permitting any man who identifies as a woman" access to female-only spaces.

NHS Fife says work is under way to "identify areas where any adaptations may be required and schedule any work that may be necessary," as a result of the judgment.

It added that it was waiting to review a new code of practice expected to be issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which advises public bodies on the law.

In a statement, the EHRC said it was "currently working at pace" on the new advice but it added that organisations should "comply with the law" now by "looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices".

The Scottish government says it "accepts the Supreme Court ruling" adding that "detailed work that is necessary as a consequence" is ongoing.
 
Nero Fiddled said:
NHS Fife confirmed no formal sanction had been imposed on the nurse and that the review panel "concluded that a facilitated reflective practice discussion would be appropriate".
Click to expand...

God that doesn’t sound Orwellian at all. Who’s supposed to be doing the reflecting? It obviously should be NHS Fife and Ted Upton.
 
monstrous bubo said:
God that doesn’t sound Orwellian at all. Who’s supposed to be doing the reflecting? It obviously should be NHS Fife and Ted Upton.
Click to expand...
I thought that as well.
It's a pretty standard example of a grudging backdown by the NHS Trust involved, whilst avoiding an apology and making it clear who is in charge there.

I personally hope she sues the living daylights out of them.
 
The headline talks about pride, but this judicial review was brought by a lesbian who objected to the police getting too friendly with troons

Uniformed police officers were wrong to march in Pride event, high court rules​

Ruling against Northumbria police could affect other forces’ involvement with Remembrance parades and religious events, sources fear

Vikram Dodd Police and crime correspondent
Wed 16 Jul 2025 20.16 BSTLast modified on Wed 16 Jul 2025 20.46 BST

Police chiefs have been left stunned after the high court ruled officers were wrong to wear their uniforms to take part in last year’s Pride festival in Newcastle.

The judgment found that the chief constable of Northumbria acted “irrationally” and breached a duty of impartiality by officially supporting the event, which was alleged to have supported views that people could change their gender.

The ruling followed a case brought by a woman who objected to uniformed officers taking part to represent their force, which covers Newcastle.

The claimant, Linzi Smith, is a gender-critical lesbian who believes sex is immutable. She alleged the event supported an ideology that gender can be chosen.

The ruling found Vanessa Jardine, the chief constable, was wrong to allow uniformed officers to take part, marching in uniform bearing Pride flags and painting a police van in colours supporting the event.

The judgment listed slogans displayed during the march, which police did not dispute.

These included: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, “Toute le monde deteste la police”, “Northumbria police, off our Pride”, “Intifada don’t deny it, Stonewall was a fucking riot” and “Queers for free Palestine”.

Nationally, police chiefs are rushing to understand the judgment and its potential scope. One police source spoke of hearing concerns that forces could not be officially represented at Remembrance parades, events in support of the armed services, or community and religious celebrations, if anyone could object.

However, another said the ruling was “absolutely right”, adding: “If you are in uniform, you are on duty … to police without fear or favour.”

In his judgment, Mr Justice Linden wrote: “The claimant describes herself as a lesbian who is ‘gender critical’. She believes that a person’s sex is an immutable characteristic and that ‘gender ideology’, which recognises a person’s gender identity, is ‘wrong and dangerous’.

“Her evidence is that gender ideology has been embraced by the organisers of the event … and was supported by many of the participants in the event, who also strongly oppose gender-critical beliefs.

“She objects to what she sees as the force and/or members of the force associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating in the event.”

The judge made clear he was not ruling on the merits of the highly charged transgender debate, but whether a body could officially support a disputed cause without breaching a duty of impartiality it was legally bound to observe.

The case was supported by a group called Fair Cop, which alleges policing is blighted by excessive political correctness and was founded by Harry Miller, a former officer.

In his witness statement, Miller said the chief constable “marched in the immediate proximity of those carrying the flags and emblems clearly associated with the gender ideologists’ cause”.

He added that banners saying “Trans women are women” and “Trans rights are human rights”, plus “the intersectional flag and the blue, pink and white transgender pride flag” signalled a political association “in a similar way to how someone shouting ‘build a wall’ or ‘make America great again’ signals an association with Donald Trump”.

Reaching his decision, the judge said of the chief constable: “Her participation in the march was likely to be seen, and may well have been intended to be seen, as expressing the support of the head of the force for the views and the cause which the march sought to promote, and therefore as indicating the position or perspective of the force as an organisation.”

The judge said all the force’s actions at the event gave “the impression that the force as a whole was associating itself with a particular viewpoint and, as far as gender-critical people were concerned, taking sides.”

Linzi Smith said: “It is terrifying to live in a community where the police have abandoned their duty of impartiality and embraced a highly controversial political cause. I’ve experienced firsthand what happens when the police forget their duty of impartiality. I posted some gender-critical tweets, and Northumbria Police launched an investigation into my conduct – but when I received appalling homophobic abuse as a lesbian, they did absolutely nothing.”

Northumbria police said: “We recognise not all communities share the same level of confidence in policing for a variety of reasons. We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us.

“Part of that is us being visible in those communities and playing an active part in our force area. Throughout the year, we will have an important role to play in a variety of events, including parades and festivals.

“During these events, while our primary aim is to keep people safe, it also provides us with an opportunity to engage with people, including those who may have less confidence in policing.

“It is vitally important they feel supported and we continue to build their trust in us.”

Smith’s lawyer, Paul Conrathe, said the judgment may have repercussions for other bodies with a duty of impartiality, such as the BBC, “if they align themselves with a controversial cause”.
Click to expand...


It might even lead to schools stopping their pride events. We can but hope.
 
Stupid Sexy Flanders said:
Imagine being an educated lawyer and screeching that the highest court in the country is "illegitimate".

Just move Alex if that's what you think.
Click to expand...
I’d be more pissed with the ACLU bringing a performative feel-good case before the SUPREME COURT when anyone with half a brain knew that refusing to define a suspect class is an immediate no-go. Like what the fuck did you expect with a conservative majority, except to do absolutely nothing except make things even worse?

The dissent was mainly men though, so I guess their only option is to attack random women who DARE to point out how deeply retarded their argument was.
 
Fat Dumb Gay inadvertently makes the Republican case for defunding public broadasting. The taxpayers should not be subsidizing the political messaging of either party.

Alex is too retarded to understand that he mae the opposte case of what he thinks he did. Using dumbshit Al's logic, public broadcasting should have been full blown MAGA messaging during the prior administration.

Screenshot 2025-07-17 080356.webp
Screenshot 2025-07-17 080557.webp
 
No, they did not Kermit. The outlawed pseudoscientific practices that have no legitimate medical or scientific basis.

Screenshot 2025-07-17 151438.webp

SCOTUS JUST RULED THAT TROONERY IS NOT HEALTHCARE KERMIT.

Screenshot 2025-07-17 162417.webp


"Transgender Puerto Ricans younger than 21 no longer will have access to gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgeries under legislation signed this week by the U.S. territory’s Republican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón that threatens doctors with criminal penalties.

The law approved late Wednesday would punish health care professionals who provide gender-affirming care to minors and young adults with a $50,000 fine per violation and a determinate prison sentence of 15 years. Doctors also would lose their licenses and permits and be permanently barred from conducting business in Puerto Rico.

“Minors, having not yet reached the necessary emotional, cognitive, and physical maturity, are particularly vulnerable to making decisions that can have irreversible consequences,” reads the law, set to take effect in October. “Therefore, it is the State’s duty to ensure their comprehensive well-being.”

Under Puerto Rican law, the age of majority, or legal adulthood, begins at 21, making the island’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors one of the most restrictive of any U.S. state or territory. Roughly half the nation has adopted laws since 2021 that limit access to prescription medications, such as hormones and puberty blockers, and gender-affirming surgical procedures, typically for children and teens younger than 18."

Puerto Rico bans gender-affirming care for trans people younger than 21
 
Last edited:
Not Dr. Evil said:
No, they did not Kermit. The outlawed pseudoscientific practices that have no legitimate medical or scientific basis.

View attachment 7656736

SCOTUS JUST RULED THAT TROONERY IS NOT HEALTHCARE KERMIT.

View attachment 7656986

"Transgender Puerto Ricans younger than 21 no longer will have access to gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgeries under legislation signed this week by the U.S. territory’s Republican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón that threatens doctors with criminal penalties.

The law approved late Wednesday would punish health care professionals who provide gender-affirming care to minors and young adults with a $50,000 fine per violation and a determinate prison sentence of 15 years. Doctors also would lose their licenses and permits and be permanently barred from conducting business in Puerto Rico.

“Minors, having not yet reached the necessary emotional, cognitive, and physical maturity, are particularly vulnerable to making decisions that can have irreversible consequences,” reads the law, set to take effect in October. “Therefore, it is the State’s duty to ensure their comprehensive well-being.”

Under Puerto Rican law, the age of majority, or legal adulthood, begins at 21, making the island’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors one of the most restrictive of any U.S. state or territory. Roughly half the nation has adopted laws since 2021 that limit access to prescription medications, such as hormones and puberty blockers, and gender-affirming surgical procedures, typically for children and teens younger than 18."

Puerto Rico bans gender-affirming care for trans people younger than 21
Click to expand...
This is a surprising level of self-awareness from Mr. Wu so far as mapping out what largely contributed to the gradual pendulum swing that's occurred over the last few years.

What he fails to grasp is that he's in no way better than the "porn-posting 20 year old dipshits" he wants to disavow. Women are also uncomfortable with you in their bathrooms, Kermit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom