Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Isn't the innate claim a cover by transactivists to prevent people from realising the surge in young girls in particular wanting drugs and disfiguring surgery is not a manifestation of something innate but because the idea was planted in their heads by activists, egged on by social media and coupled with attempts to silence those with misgivings?

I believe you know full well Unkraut that this is not the truth.

'Gender identity is innate' is not a claim of transactivists. It is the statement made by the World Health Organisation. It is an accepted expert opinion in most developed countries.

It is accepted through all branches of the United Nations including women's groups, but the Council of Europe, by the European Court of Human Rights, the EU, and by leading charitable organisation such as Greenpeace, Liberty, Amnesty International, Oxfam; the list goes on.

In the UK, the NHS states that gender identity is innate in its statements. Despite this, the NHS is required to service an outdated law - that is the Gender Recognition Act which persists in treating gender incongruence as a mental health issue.

 

[monkers]

Those opposing it might be doing so not from a motive of hate but rather love - concern for the harm this is doing.

Rated as bollocks. It's bigotry.

 

[monkers]

I deny it exists!! You are not what you self ID as.

I deny the existence of a God and demand that you are stripped of your human rights to self ID as a Christian. Is that OK?

 

[icowden]

In the UK, the NHS states that gender identity is innate in its statements. Despite this, the NHS is required to service an outdated law - that is the Gender Recognition Act which persists in treating gender incongruence as a mental health issue.

None of that is entirely true. The NHS states that ones sense of gender identity is innate. The "sense" bit is important. The NHS is not required to service an outdated law. The only people qualified to offer medical advice to someone with gender incongruence, authorise surgeries and hormone treatment etc are Clinical Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Such treatments are life altering and irreversible. It is therefore a requirement that you make sure someone is really certain that that is what they want to do, and as gender identity is a function of the mind rather than the body (it's not a kidney for example) that comes under mental health.

There is a lot of stigma about mental health, but we *all* have it. Not everyone needs treatment but many benefit from counselling for example.

As you pointed out there is a change in ICD11 to move gender incongruence to sexual health. It's a bit irrelevant though. ICD11 isn't implemented in the NHS yet and won't be until at least 2026. It is now usually subject to cross-coding with SNOMED which categorises it as mental health.

You can pretend that it isn't a mental health issue, you can recategorise it, but until you can invent non-mental health psychiatrists and psychologists and non-mental health Trusts, it's going to fall under mental health. There is a small possibility that genetic factors may be involved and if that can be proven, it might move to fall under genetics, but probably still also mental health if you require major alterations to your body to be able to live with it.

 

[icowden]

It doesn't.

Oh ok. So there are loads of trans people who don't require any medical intervention at all. How do we differentiate a transwoman who has had no medical intervention from a bloke in a dress. It's perfectly valid for a bloke to want to wear a dress, it doesn't mean that they want to be a woman. How are they different from someone who is trans but has had, and does not intend to have any medical intervention?

 

[monkers]

Oh ok. So there are loads of trans people who don't require any medical intervention at all. How do we differentiate a transwoman who has had no medical intervention from a bloke in a dress. It's perfectly valid for a bloke to want to wear a dress, it doesn't mean that they want to be a woman. How are they different from someone who is trans but has had, and does not intend to have any medical intervention?

You don't. You just mind your own business and leave them be. People have the right to dress how they want. People have the right to be naked in public if they self-ID as a naturist. If any person otherwise breaks the law you report it in the usual way.

You don't need to have a GRC to be trans, you don't need to have to even be seen by a GIC, all that is required is that the person informs their GP of their intent. The GP can then give them a letter to produce that confirms they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It's irrelevant to the law that none of Aurora, Unkraut, or you don't like it - but if you attempt to exclude people on the basis of appearance (for that is what you are talking about) that is unlawful because it's bigotry. No person commits an offence by way of their appearance. Behaviours that intend harm, alarm or distress are another matter and are treated separately.

If this wasn't so, I'm pretty sure that one poster or another would be quoting law to say that I'm wrong - but they haven't.

Self-determination of the individual is the human right of all of us - and it's our imperative to defend it even if we consider ourself to be 'Norman Normal', because it doesn't follow that our children or other members of our families will turn out to be cis het people. If one happens to be a Christian Norman Normal then one needs that right to self-determination and the legal protections that go with it. Trust me on this I know from my own family, and through my work in education for some 30 odd years with umpteen kids being made homeless by their families for being 'other'.

This government have been on a mission to remove human rights by stealth. What fools we will be to let them.

 

[monkers]

The only people qualified to offer medical advice to someone with gender incongruence, authorise surgeries and hormone treatment etc are Clinical Psychologists and Psychiatrists

This is true; I hadn't said otherwise. Two clinical assessment are needed to be, one of which can be the GP. I know of one trans woman whose surgery was approved with one letter from her counsellor and one letter from her GP, so no Clinical Psychologist or Psychiatrist. She had never attended a GIC. She successfully applied for a GRC.

What I did say is that after having surgery there is no requirement to apply for a GRC. People tend to conflate that the one is dependant on the other, they are not.

Some trans people have no surgery but do not apply for a GRC. This means that they have the twin protected characteristic of their birth sex and gender reassignment.

Some trans people have no surgery and do apply and are issued with a GRC. This means that they have the twin protected characteristic of their acquired sex and gender reassignment.

Some trans people have surgery but do not apply for a GRC. This means that they have the twin protected characteristic of their birth sex and gender reassignment.

Some trans people have surgery and do apply for a GRC. This means that they have the twin protected characteristic of their acquired sex and gender reassignment.

Some GRC applications are refused temporarily - sometimes for not competing the admin to the satisfaction of the panel - a lot of evidence is required.

 

[monkers]

This is the kind of actual harm done to women by trans misogynists.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-u...and and Team GB rugby,has muscles and no hair

 

[newfhouse]

the idea was planted in their heads by activists, egged on by social media and coupled with attempts to silence those with misgivings?

You make it sound a lot like the history of your absurd religion but I don’t think it really is.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I deny the existence of a God and demand that you are stripped of your human rights to self ID as a Christian. Is that OK?

A closer religious analogy would be 'I demand that you call people who believe in Jesus, Christians and those that don't cisChristian'. And 'I demand that Christians be allowed to go into mosques whenever they want, and to go to groups aimed specifically at Sikhs if they want to'. Also 'Having a soul is innate. Everybody has one even if they think they don't'.

You can identify as what you like but on occasion that will clash with others. There are certainly times when people's right to practise their religion as they see fit clashes with the rights of others. Nobody dismisses these clashes and says religious adherents must be allowed to do as they please.

The NHS call gender identity an 'innate sense of their own gender'.
The UN call it 'a person's deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender'.
Council of Europe say 'Gender identity refers to the gender to which persons feel they belong.....'

None of these are saying gender is innate. They say some people feel a strong sense of an internal gender. It's no different from people who very strongly feel the presence of an internal soul. It's not a good basis for legislation.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I deny the existence of a God and demand that you are stripped of your human rights to self ID as a Christian. Is that OK?

Sort of but not really. Call yourself Christian, call yourself a woman/man. No-ones deny your right to do so. The question is, what special treatment you can expect as a result of that claim.
On the innate issue, is there any evidence to back up gender identity being innate. Apart, that is, from @newfhouse's 'gut feeling'?

 

[icowden]

You don't. You just mind your own business and leave them be. People have the right to dress how they want. People have the right to be naked in public if they self-ID as a naturist. If any person otherwise breaks the law you report it in the usual way.

Which is another way of saying that women no longer matter as a separate entity. They don't need any protections or rights, as those things that have been won for biological women are now irrelevant.

You don't need to have a GRC to be trans, you don't need to have to even be seen by a GIC, all that is required is that the person informs their GP of their intent. The GP can then give them a letter to produce that confirms they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I still don't really understand why you would want a GRC but still look and sound like a man. It just sounds like insanity.

It's irrelevant to the law that none of Aurora, Unkraut, or you don't like it - but if you attempt to exclude people on the basis of appearance (for that is what you are talking about) that is unlawful because it's bigotry.

I haven't talked about excluding anyone from anywhere.

No person commits an offence by way of their appearance. Behaviours that intend harm, alarm or distress are another matter and are treated separately.

I agree.

 

[monkers]

I haven't talked about excluding anyone from anywhere.

You did ask how you can tell a trans woman from a man in a dress. That was a loaded question. If your need to know is not to exclude, what is it?

 

[monkers]

Which is another way of saying that women no longer matter as a separate entity.

Well Norman, women are not a separate entity. Nor are men. Or any cohort of people. We, all of us, share the nine protected characteristics under UK human rights law. Women are not a separate entity and I'm at a loss to think why we think we should be.

This is a matter of fact that runs from the UN through all intergovernmental bodies that are 'official observers' of the UN including the Council of Europe, the EU, NATO etc etc all the way down to the UK Human Rights Act.

The UK human rights law covers each of us under each characteristic of either having that characteristic, or otherwise being perceived as having that protected characteristic.

For the purposes of the EqA none of us are treated as separate entity. We are all of us in one group - human, hence human rights.

Our rights are intersectional. Taken together we each have membership of human rights, and under the EqA (which is the part of human rights legislation that protects individuals from discrimination) we each have presence in each of the nine protected characteristics.

The current government are attempting to remove rights by stealth. They label UK human rights lawyers as 'lefty lawyers' and they demonise those people who seek effective remedy in the courts as 'vexatious litigants'. They seek to emancipate the judiciary.

They are creating a culture within in the UK with an ambition of removing human rights wholesale. They sow division and set groups against each other. They are willfully misrepresenting asylum seeking people as 'illegal'. Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that the so-called 'small boats bill' is unlawful. Already there are Conservative MPs, Ministers, and Cabinet members calling for derogation from the European Court of Human Rights as a result, because they know that their actions are unlawful. To do say will be a serious set back for the ordinary citizen of the UK. An ambition of the UK government is to repeal the UK Human Rights Act altogether. Already the government are introducing bills to remove human rights piecemeal.

No matter; UK law is ultimately required to respect the 30 Articles of the UNDHR.

The United Nations covers the point of 'separate entity' in Article 1 of the UNDHR ...

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Therefore women can not lawfully lay claim to preponderance of their right to dignity over the same right of trans women. UN women's groups know this and respect the article. The UK is able to pass legislation to enable a balance of rights. For example, they can legislate that changing area are arranged such that there is communal changing for those who wish for it, and private changing for those who wish it, with segregation for each area.
Articles 27 to 30 of the UNDHR set how the way in which Articles 1 to 26 apply to us as individuals, and how they apply to member states.

Article 27​

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28​

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29​

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30​

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Much is made of the example used by human rights advocates of 'sleepwalking into facism'. Article 30 is sometimes referred to as the 'limits on tyrants'. It uses the example of facism for this purpose within the explanation.

From the UN itself ...

Article 30 has been called "limits on tyrants." It gives all of us freedom from State or personal interference in the rights in all the preceding Articles. However, it also stresses that we may not exercise these rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations. Working in the shadow of the Second World War, the drafters wanted to prevent Fascists’ returning to power in Germany by, for example, taking advantage of freedom of expression and freedom to stand for election at the expense of other rights and freedoms. They were acutely aware that many of the atrocities inflicted by Hitler’s regime were based on an efficient legal system – but with laws that violated basic human rights.

Drafters were looking for an international legal framework to guard against excesses of individual countries, and to prevent another war or Holocaust. States that treat their own citizens well, they believed, were less likely to have aggressive designs on other countries.

What they produced was an astonishing achievement. In the midst of recovery from war, at the outset of the Cold War, with the United Nations in its infancy, the drafters managed to agree on a text that transcended differences in language, nationality and culture – not completely, but to an extent unprecedented in international relations.

Now please fully understand why this government has declared 'a war on woke'. The 'war on woke' is state-sponsored full frontal attack on human rights. They use tax payers money in order to fight against the human rights of ordinary citizens.

​

 

[monkers]

A closer religious analogy would be 'I demand that you call people who believe in Jesus, Christians and those that don't cisChristian'. And 'I demand that Christians be allowed to go into mosques whenever they want, and to go to groups aimed specifically at Sikhs if they want to'. Also 'Having a soul is innate. Everybody has one even if they think they don't'.

You can identify as what you like but on occasion that will clash with others. There are certainly times when people's right to practise their religion as they see fit clashes with the rights of others. Nobody dismisses these clashes and says religious adherents must be allowed to do as they please.

The NHS call gender identity an 'innate sense of their own gender'.
The UN call it 'a person's deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender'.
Council of Europe say 'Gender identity refers to the gender to which persons feel they belong.....'

None of these are saying gender is innate. They say some people feel a strong sense of an internal gender. It's no different from people who very strongly feel the presence of an internal soul. It's not a good basis for legislation.

Whatever dude.