Camilla Tominey and Joani Walsh for the Telegraph write:

The Labour Party has threatened a member with disciplinary action for referring to a transgender woman as “a man”.

She then received a letter from Sophie Goodyear, head of complaints of Labour’s National Executive Committee, describing the remarks as “offensive”, saying “abuse of any kind, whether direct attacks or pejorative language which may cause offence is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in our party.”

Ms Hutton has responded by making a complaint to Labour that her human rights have been breached. In a letter to Ms Goodyear, she wrote: “I am not under the delusion that humans can change sex. This is my belief and therefore I have this right not to have my belief invalidated by your dogma. This is also ECHR Article 9 as my FREEDOM NOT TO BELIEVE in your ideology.” She has not yet received a response.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/10/labour-threatens-disciplinary-action-against-member-calls-transgender/

Michael Cook for Mercatornet writes:

Faster than rights for blacks; faster than rights for women; faster than rights for homosexuals; way, way faster than rights for Down syndrome kids. The trans juggernaut is crushing opposition everywhere, and not just in the United States. In most Western countries, trans rights have become the new civil rights – even though the medical establishment had classified gender dysphoria as a mental illness only a few years ago.

However, as soldiers know, too rapid an advance, even with brilliant victories, weakens an army’s supply line. And in this case, under increasingly close scrutiny some transgender arguments are showing signs of weakening.

The Economist expresses strong scepticism of transgenderism as an ideology, as a medical condition, and as a political movement. “The state should also resist the impulse to make trans people’s legal status a matter of personal definition, as Britain is considering. The state needs to be involved for the liberal reason that the welfare gains of self-id for trans people should be balanced against the potential harm to others.”

Feminists argued that the movement for trans rights penalises women. For cis-women (natal females), it amounts to a colonial invasion. For decades feminists have struggled for affirmative action to help them break the glass ceiling. And then trans-women (natal males) take advantage of those gains in business or sport.

Instead of doing away with the shackles of sexual stereotypes, transgenderism locks them even tighter, feminists complain. If a cis-boy plays with dolls, he must be a potential trans-woman; if a cis-girl climbs trees, she must be a potential trans-male.

For instance, the number of children who are being treated for gender dysphoria and who are being encouraged to change their gender is skyrocketing. But where is the evidence that this is the correct solution?

Nearly all societies segregate men and women in change rooms and toilets to keep women safe. Of course, most trans-women are not violent. But as The Economist points out, “self-id is sure to be exploited by predators. Bitter experience from the Catholic church shows that predatory men will go to great lengths to satisfy their desires. Self-id grants natal males access to places where women and children sleep, wash and change.”

Perhaps the surprising stand taken by The Economist is a sign that common sense is reasserting itself. It’s about time. An ideology which has little scientific justification, which persuades by bullying and intimidation, and which may cause immense harm to a generation of young people deserves to sink beneath the waters for ever.

https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/are-the-wheels-falling-off-the-transgender-juggernaut?

Camilla Turner for the Telegraph reports:

Jenni Murray has pulled out of a talk at Oxford University after LGBTQ+ students claimed that she is “transphobic” and attempted to “no platform” her.

The veteran BBC broadcaster and Women’s Hour presenter was due to speak this Saturday at an Oxford History Society event, as part of their “Powerful British Women in History” series of events.

Students claimed that Murray “explicitly transphobic comments” in a newspaper article last year, in which she argued that trans women who have lived as men “with all the privilege that entails” do not have the experience of growing up female.

The students’ letter contains “trigger warnings” for “Terfs”, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and is generally used as a derogatory term to describe those who believe that “identifying” as a woman is not the same as being born a woman.

Murray has previously said that she “made very clear” in her article that she “fully support the right of trans women to be accorded the respect and protection I would demand for any human being, regardless of sex or gender”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/11/07/jenni-murray-pulls-oxford-talk-students-try-no-platform-transphobic/

Kelly McLaughlin for INSIDER writes:

A 69-year-old entrepreneur in the Netherlands wants to legally change his age to 49 so he can go back to work and meet more women on Tinder, according to his lawsuit.

Emile Ratelband filed a lawsuit against the Dutch government in an attempt to change the birth date on his passport from March 11, 1949, to March 11, 1969, the Dutch publication De Telegraaf reported.

The self-proclaimed positivity guru argued that he feels 20 years younger, and compared the age difference to being transgender, despite the concepts being completely different.

“You can change your name. You can change your gender. Why not your age? Nowhere are you so discriminated against as with your age,” he told De Telegraaf.

“When I’m 69, I am limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer,” he said.

https://www.thisisinsider.com/dutch-man-emile-ratelband-wants-to-legally-change-his-age-to-49-2018-11?

– The Post Millennial

The anonymous individual “JY” has filed 16 separate complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal after being refused a Brazilian wax from businesses that only service women.

The Justice Centre has been connected with only two of the 16 women, and has provided legal representation to both, without charge.

One of them, Shelah Poyer, is a single mom who works out of her home. JY was willing to withdraw his complaint in exchange for $2,500.

If JY is demanding similar sums from the other 14 women, he stands to receive as much as $35,000 for dropping his human rights complaints.

Fighting JY’s discrimination complaint all the way through to a hearing would cost each esthetician $20,000 or $30,000 or more.

Further, those facing a complaint of “gender identity” discrimination may find it extremely difficult to obtain legal representation.

Without legal representation, it is likely that most or all of these 14 women are going to pay settlement money to JY, to escape the very stressful tribunal process.

JY continues to benefit unfairly from the Tribunal’s anonymity Order, and from the Tribunal not informing the estheticians that free legal representation is available to them.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/carpay-16-vancouver-women-facing-human-rights-complaints-for-refusing-to-wax-transgender-womans-male-genitalia/

culturallyboundgender writes:

Whether you are new to the world of feminism or not, you have probably heard one of these arguments in favor of accepting identity-based sex/gender* definitions:

• Sex is a spectrum, not a binary
• There are people with chromosomes that don’t match their outward physical appearance
• There exists a huge range of intersex conditions, challenging the very idea of what we consider “male” or “female”

But these sex is a spectrum arguments are sophistry. They are a word game. . . . Because these arguments always lead up to “identity,” and intersex conditions are conditions existing in material reality.

Let’s take, by way of example, something we all accept is a spectrum already: visible light.

Blue light and red light exist toward the ends of this spectrum, and there is a dramatic range of colors in between.

And yet, discoveries of new colors within that spectrum — or the fuzzy boundaries between what we, for instance, perceive as red versus orange — do not mean that yellow is whatever someone identifies as yellow (or believes is yellow with all their heart).

[S]ome sheep being born with ambiguous genitalia and infertility issues doesn’t mean a ram can suddenly be a ewe upon request.

Sex spectrum arguments are irrelevant to the idea of identity-based sex and gender definitions. They are a deliberate time-wasting tactic engaged in by mansplainers, who jump in with an “Aaaaactually…” and then use this red herring to confuse the argument and claim victory.

Bookmark this post — and the next time you hear someone making this argument, send them this way.

https://culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2018/10/10/on-sex-ribbons-and-why-cows-still-arent-bulls/

Jamie Doward for The Guardian writes:

Britain’s only NHS gender identity service for children is reviewing its operations amid claims made by a senior member of staff that it is failing to examine fully the psychological and social reasons behind young people’s desire to change gender.

The views are shared by a group of parents of transgender children, who have raised their own concerns that the Tavistock Centre’s gender identity development service (GIDS) in London is “fast-tracking” young people into life-altering decisions without fully assessing their personal histories.

The parents claim that the huge increase in numbers of children seeking referrals, which has risen from 97 in 2009 to 2,519 in the year to April, is placing great demands on the clinic, with potentially negative consequences for children.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults