Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️

IT Professional/Engineer | Biker | Northumberland based photographer | Astro | Landscape | Commercial | Portrait | Wildlife | YT:

[India Willoughby @IndiaWilloughby]

Ah! Problem solved. This is the current running total of MPs signing to oppose the introduction of trans apartheid. https://t.co/ohBF4eu1hA

[India Willoughby @IndiaWilloughby]

I’m sorry, but the fixed UKSC ruling is incompatible with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It has completely misunderstood the Equality Act 2010 - which does not mention once a thing called “biological sex.” A term invented by the anti-trans people movement. Lord Hodge overstepped his remit and got it wrong. The GRA clearly says anyone with a GRC FULLY becomes the sex they transition to, for ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. Making women use the gents is the opposite of that. Labour need to grow a backbone and - for the second time in their hidtory - bring is into line with the rest of Europe.

[Steph Richards: (She/her) - Say NO to hate. @PompeySteph]

I AM NOT GOING QUIETLY: FIGHTING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW.

The EHRC Draft Code of Practice was published on the 21st of May, and trans people, friends, family and human rights allies are horrified at the potential human rights issues. Consequently, I am seeking a Judicial Review against the code.

The reality is, trans men could find themselves banned from both male and female toilets, while trans women (many of whom have had lower surgery with constructed vagina’s) could find themselves banned from using women’s facilities, which they have used without issues for decades.

This places trans women in danger of harassment and violence if circumstances force them to use men's facilities.

This is a human rights abuse of epic proportions.

While it is great to see dozens of MPs backing an Early Day Motion to stop the code and return it to the EHRC, it is sadly unlikely to secure a majority.

In essence, a Judicial Review is likely to be our last chance to challenge this human rights abuse.

As a consequence, with the permission of Crowd Justice and my legal team, I have decided to change my proposed legal action against the Labour Party and to seek a Judicial Review of the code on human rights grounds.

We are, of course, aware of the GLP v EHRC appeal, and also aware that the Labour Party may feel it has escaped legal action. While that is true in the short term, I still believe we have a case.

Donors to my case against the Labour Party have been contacted by Crowd Justice and offered a refund - I am delighted to confirm that the vast majority have decided to support the change.

Indeed, on hearing the news, many people have chipped in still further, realising that a Judicial Review will challenge some of the effects of the Supreme Court judgment (FWS v SGM)

Initially, I am seeking £75,000 (approx £26,000 is being transferred from my case against Labour). In total, the case could cost circa £250,000.

It is important to note that I have “standing” - I am not a "third party" and have already been discriminated against.

Can you help?

Please donate and share - I cant do this without you.

Thank you.

LINK: https://t.co/OYasJJOFqW

[The Green Party @TheGreenParty]

Impractical, intrusive and inhumane - @RachelMillward responds to the ECHR guidance on behalf of Green Party leadership.

[Nadia Whittome MP @NadiaWhittomeMP]

Alongside colleagues, I have tabled a motion to disapprove the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations. We cannot support it, and we have a responsibility to our trans constituents to resist it.

This motion is currently the only available mechanism through which Parliament can reject the EHRC’s Code of Practice; if it is debated and passed within the 40-day scrutiny window, it would prevent the Code from being issued by the EHRC and coming into force.

Please email your MP asking them to sign EDM 240. 

The Code will exclude trans people from services and facilities that they have long used without issue, putting them at increased risk of harassment and violence, and effectively pushing them out of public life. 

It ushers in an era of enforced segregation for trans people, the policing of which will be outsourced to service providers, including businesses, charities and public bodies. 

In the statement to the House of Commons yesterday, the Minister even suggested that where members of the public are unsure of someone’s gender within a single-sex facility, “most people will have the common sense to step in where necessary or, if they are concerned, to alert a member of staff.”

Meanwhile, this guidance does not give clarity and confidence to organisations that want to be trans-inclusive. Its impact also extends beyond the rights of trans people. The government’s own Equality Impact Assessment warns that “women who are considered masculine may face greater scrutiny” and that disabled people could face adverse impacts.

The Code represents a profound rollback of rights, which will affect trans people directly and erode the principles of inclusion, dignity and equality upon which all our rights depend.

This guidance must not become statutory; the government should withdraw it and instead legislate to clarify and protect trans people’s rights, privacy and inclusion.

https://t.co/odTmOAIejk

[Steph Richards: (She/her) - Say NO to hate. @PompeySteph]

Unjust, Unworkable, Unnecessary.

It's good that the Liberal Democrats have rejected the EHRC Draft Code of Practice (CoP), but what of UK Labour? Will Keir Starmer stand up? Ed Davey certainly has.

Unjust: The CoP comes on the back of one of the worst judgments in British history.

Trans people were denied a voice in court, the Human Rights Act was clearly not read, and the European Court's Goodwin judgment was ignored.

The result is that Gender Recognition Certificate holders are one sex for this, one sex for that - placed in the “intermediate zone” - EXACTLY what Goodwin was all about.

The result was tragic.

The Samaritians saw an 40% increase in calls for help (the trans community is less 0.5% of the population) - proving the devastating blow to a tiny percentage of people who already suffer significant discrimination in the cruellest of culture wars.

How many succeeded in taking their own life?

We will never know.

It's true, not all trans women or men dont have gender-affirming surgery, but the majority do (that's for another post) - so just why is it ok to “out” trans women with vagina’s by directing them to third spaces (if they exist) or worse still to men's toilets when they will likely suffer violence?

Why should trans women with breasts and vaginas be placed in men's wards in hospitals?

And trans men?

According to the CoP, they cant use the men's loo (because they are biologically female) or the womens because they look like men.

Who would have guessed that?

Can no one see the inhumanity?

Unworkable: Just how do you police toilets and changing rooms? I will leave it right there.

Madness.

Unnecessary: When I became the CEO of TransLucent (I don't miss the job by the way), I immediately thought of “data”.

High-quality data proves EVERYTHING, and the data collected over three+ years by 382 Freedom of Information requests to local authorities and NHS Foundation Trusts across the UK PROVED there were just a handful of complaints about trans women using those single sex facilities.

How many was a handful?

Four ..... f*ckin FOUR!

Let's break that down. One complaint was actually about ‘policy’, another the person was “thought” to be a trans - the complainant was not sure.

Were the other two complaints valid?

Who knows?

They were deemed insignificant by the authorities and were not investigated further.

Lies, lies, lies - the right-wing politicians and their media have manipulated this cruellest of “debates”

Stand up, Labour MPs - stand up.

https://t.co/R6Ve4N3w1e

[Brianna Wu @BriannaWu]

This clip by @stclairashley is dead on. Trans panic is not about protecting women and little girls.

It’s low IQ slop for lazy content creators. It affects very few people and the focus comes at the expense of materially improving women’s lives.

[India Willoughby @IndiaWilloughby]

Ok - here it is. The petition to RESTORE TRANS RIGHTS in the UK to what they were under the original Equality Act 2010 - which was NEVER a “bathroom bill.” And to quash the ridiculous UKSC ruling. Share, share, share! 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️https://t.co/cJTlwGQa3g https://t.co/IbkpVMgtUk

[Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️ @natsrambles]

No, talk TV, please stop terrible and misleading reporting like this. This is a restricted number to protect the privacy of those who hold a GRC, with respect to section 22. Its to protect and restrict that data, not a VIP Hotline.

[Talk @TalkTV]

“Why is it that they need extra protection?”

Co-founder of Together Declaration Alan Miller criticises the HMRC for granting trans people access to a VIP hotline.

@petercardwell @alanvibe

[Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️ @natsrambles]

@NickMilnerPhoto Going back to your stats, a bad man, will do bad things whether equality law says he can or not. Because he is a bad man! You can put as many protections in place as you want, but a bad person will break all rules. So punishing folks who are good people is not the right answer

[Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️ @natsrambles]

Oh, so if an establishment has only male and female, the trans person should not visit that venue? That discrimination and would fail proportionality under the EA. If there is no option then its proportional for a trans man to use the men's, or trans women to use the ladies.

[Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️ @natsrambles]

@NickMilnerPhoto Let me give you an example. A person born with sawyer syndrome, has a vagina, womb, but no ovaries. She has undeveloped testis. Biologically she is a man, XY, yet she is accepted as a women, because she looks like one. A trans women, having had HRT and SRS, is very similar

[Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️ @natsrambles]

@NickMilnerPhoto If they do not pass as well, they get prejudice as divinest who are a threat in women's spaces. This is often driven by ignorance and folks who simply do not thing gender dysphoria is a real condition. They think it a lifestyle choice.

[Natalie Wright 📷🌸🏍️ @natsrambles]

@NickMilnerPhoto Point in question, that poor trans woman, Juniper, who was murdered, was not targeted because she was trans, the killer wanted to attack a women. He saw Juniper, she looked like a woman, so he killed her. This is the point, if trans women pass, they share vulnrabilitys