Question

In the UK, you can no longer say that biological sex is immutable, and that it is impossible to change one’s sex.

shj648 6

Answer 1

"[addressing someone by their actual gender is] incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" Let's cut right to the real problem - my human dignity is not conferred to me by someone else's belief. It is not affected by someone else's speech. It is intrinsic and not the play toy for overindulged adult children.

"[the Gender Recognition Act] provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned." - quick, someone get this to God! I don't think he was copied on the memo.

King Canute is laughing!

Cousin Eric was right.

Answer 2

It’s impossible to change your chromosomes

Answer 3

The waters are purposely muddied and collusion within education, the judiciary and government (especially local government and central government civil service) is seeking to limit opinion and dialogue. If in debate, opinion can be shown to be wrong, dialogue can possibly resolve the issue. But if at any turn one is surpressed and opinion is criminalised, it is impossible for society to progress intellectually. We are reduced to being children in the playground shouting at one another and one with the loudest voice prevails, even if they totally wrong. Universities deplatform and by doing so reduce themselves to no more than self opinionated intellectual fascists. Judiciary become the catspaw of prevailing thought fashion and government trembles fearfully in case they formulate sound reasoning and guidance (although that may be observed as perennial).

Answer 4

Thats not correct, it is muttable by surgery, what they are saying is Identity trumps biology. You like 99% of people fail to properly grasp the issue.

Answer 5

The judges comments in this case sum up what to me is wrong with the current interpretation or application of ‘human rights’. The ruling effectively ignores free speech or at least takes the view that what an individual decides to be in terms of gender overrides another person’s ability to express their personal belief on the subject of gender. The judge was critical of the ‘guilty party’s’ views which were criticised as being absolutist. In other words she held fixed personal beliefs. Apparently unacceptable for some in today’s society but acceptable for others. So much for human rights.
This case highlights the contradiction that so called human rights in its present form, creates. When one aspect of human rights ie those of a particular individual cut across the rights of another one right has to be declared more important. This seems to be against the basic principles of what human rights are for and creates subjective bias, as appears to me to be the situation in this rather bizarre ( but currently fashionable) ruling.

Answer 6

The UK is circling the drain. The Cultural Marxists are in the home stretch in their effort to destroy the country and its traditional culture and rebuild it from the ground up in their own image. Hopefully Johnson can reverse this fatal trend.


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

6 comments

Recent Visitors 20

Photos 11,795 More

Members 9,402Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore

Share this post with your group