Skip to content

Seems a bit de trop here

What’s frightening about this is that it shows the EHRC’s utter contempt for trans people. They U-turned on trans rights over a year ago and still haven’t made the tiniest attempt to pretend there’s any justification for it, or to suggest there’s any evidence on which they based their U-turn or this more recent letter. The tories simply said FUCK TRANS PEOPLE and the EHRC jumped to attention, saluted and asked: how hard?

Well, umm, no.

Under the current law, upon acquisition of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), a trans person becomes their ‘acquired’ sex for all legal purposes. There is no distinction between sex and gender in UK law.

The proposal made in the letter from the EHRC is that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the term ‘sex’ be defined as ‘biological sex’, rather than its current definition of legal sex (ie what is recorded on your birth certificate, either at birth or as amended by a GRC).

The term ‘biological sex’ has no coherent definition in law. The leading case on the legal definition of sex, and of ‘biological sex’, is known as Corbett v Corbett, a divorce case from 1969. The judge, Roger Ormrod, identified three components of ‘biological sex’ that are to be determined at birth and cannot be altered, even by subsequent surgical intervention. These components are chromosomal, gonadal and genital.

So, the proposal is to clear this legal matter up. For some things gender matters. For others sex. Oh well, when we’ve two different things then the rules for one will apply at times, the rules for another will at other times. Seems a simple enough idea.

For example, when working out who needs a prostate exam then my male sex is important as a qualifier. When discussing the right to a fair trial my maleness is an entire irrelevance, it’s my humanity which is the deciding factor. In one of those weirdnesses in English law I must posses a penis in order to be even charged with rape for that’s the essential instrument. Well, that’s just the way it is. Carrie, for example, will likely need prostate exams and not cervical ones despite changed gender to female, because those important parts of the definition of sex haven’t in fact changed.

Now, Carrie is taking the claim too far. It might well be true that someone transgender, under the new legal form, will have no gender based rights. Because we’ve changed that law to refer to sex, not gender. OK. Or even, to get that the right way around, they’ll have gender based rights because that is what has changed, but not different sex based ones as that hasn’t.

But to say that this removes human rights from trans folk is of course entire and ghastly nonsense. Because human rights apply to humans and whatever else we might say about trans folk they’re definitely that. So, trans folk stop being special (if not Speshul) and gain exactly the same rights as everyone else without fear or favour.

Which, you know, ain’t fascism.

The actual effect for Carrie will be that as a transwoman she will enjoy exactly the same human rights he did when he was a heterosexual white male. Because despite the hysteria she’s still human, see?

13 thoughts on “Seems a bit de trop here”

  1. At first, Carrie midered me. Maybe I’m turning into a soft, Southern, shandy-drinking poofter in my old age, but mostly I just pity the poor fool now.

    He’s doing the tranny version of doom scrolling, and it’s affecting his mental health (how could it not?) They’re trapped in their echo chambers, egging each other on with mad tales of “trans genocide” and sinister far-right conspiracies. Their mortal enemies are children’s authors and Mumsnet. Things are not going well for these fellas.

    Imagine living your life frightened that Suella Braverman is going to burst into your house, any day now, and glue your willy back on.

    Silly, isn’t it?

  2. Gary can have as many certificates as he likes, but he’ll still be a fat bloke in a dress who was so ill he had his todger chopped off (If he’s still got his meat and 2 veg, then he doesn’t really think he’s a woman)

  3. “she will enjoy exactly the same human rights”

    There are no human rights – all we have are civil rights and the customs of our people.

  4. Harry Haddock's Ghost


    It’s really simple.

    Transwomen have exactly the same rights as other men. Likewise, transmen have the same rights as other women. This is actually a jolly good thing, given that transwomen are men and transmen are women.

    It’s so simple it hurts.

  5. Do any of you know what it’s like to be a man but feel like you are a woman? The mental anguish this must cause? The emotional suffering?

    If you do, keep it to yourself. I’m not in the least interested.

  6. The tories simply said FUCK TRANS PEOPLE and the EHRC jumped to attention, saluted and asked: how hard?

    Perhaps I read that wrong……

  7. Am I alone in wondering how this grand conspiracy against trans people seems to be perpetrated only in the minds of trans activists?

    Meanwhile in the real world people go about their business and don’t care

    At some stage is someone going to call out the disproportionate level of resources being thrown at a miniscule portion of the population?

    How about some activism for people facing real, rather than imaginary, problems, like people with autism?

    The funny thing is in my experience autistic people are far more balanced and sensible than trans activists

  8. Listen, and understand! That ugly travesty is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop… ever, until its desirable female form gives all cis hetero males the horn!

  9. I think the European Court of Human Rights is actually ECHR.

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission is another bunch of worthless grifters sucking on the taxpayer teat.

  10. “In one of those weirdnesses in English law I must posses a penis in order to be even charged with rape for that’s the essential instrument. ”
    Wasn’t there a recent case where a biological woman was convicted of rape because she was a participant in a gang rape of another woman? There were penises involved of course, but none of them were hers.

  11. I can’t think of a single reason why the “law” should concern itself in any way with the genetic make up of any one individual. Same goes for government.

    Or have I misunderstood the whole point of sexism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *