Originally a comment by maddog on A lemon by any other name.

Where to begin?

1. He talks with his hands. They never stop moving. He must be very distracting, not to say annoying, in a courtroom setting.

2. What is he wearing? A blazer over his undershirt?

3. “The UK Supreme Court ruled that the term ‘sex’ in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, even though ‘bioligical’ is not written into the Act.”

Well, duh. Statutory construction, how does it work? Of course, if the Act had made that clear in the first place, we wouldn’t have had all the silliness of men taking over everything from women under the johnny-come-lately doctrine of “transgenderism.” It wasn’t made explicit in the Act for the simple reason that nobody thought it would have to be said, that everyone knows what “sex” means, and nobody anticipated the perversion of ordinary language so successfully achieved by the trans lobby. If “biological” had been included in the statutory language, there would not have been the need to litigate what the statute means. But interpreting statutes is what courts DO. You, of all people, as a barrister, should know that. The trans lobby created “ambiguity” where there really was no cause to do so, and thus brought upon themselves the necessity of litigation to declare the proper meaning of the statute. Trans activists have only themselves to blame for this result.

4. The EHRC interim guidance “effectively exclud[es] trans people from single-sex spaces, denying them privacy . . . ”

No, it doesn’t, you liar. The guidance makes clear — as trans activists shout so vociferously when it suits their purposes — that sex and gender are not the same thing. Single-sex spaces are single SEX, without regard to anyone’s gender identity. It doesn’t stop anyone from claiming any gender identity they want. It’s just that the relevant criterion is biological sex, so use the facilities for your sex. So-called trans women can be that gender identity to their hearts’ content, and still use the single-sex facility for their biological sex.

As to denying trans people’s “right to privacy,” trans identified men in men’s spaces, and trans identified women in women’s spaces, will have as much privacy for their intimate functions as any other man or woman in the appropriate sex-segregated space. But that’s not what they really mean. What they want is for no one to be able to notice or remark on their actual sex. It’s like their being “transgender” is some kind of state secret. It’s not. If you are out and about in public, it is usually pretty obvious what your sex is, particularly if you are a man, no matter what you wear or how made up you are. (Heh: made up. Snerk.) That’s the one that matters the most: for women to be protected from the men, and to know who the men are. Women are peculiarly vulnerable to male violence, with potential consequences that no men ever have to face.

5. “. . . and erasing intersex identities.”

Another lie. Quelle surprise.

For one thing, trans dogmatists insist on using the incorrect term, “intersex,” rather than “disorders of sex development,” or DSDs. They do this deliberately to muddy the waters, to pretend that there is such a thing as a “spectrum” of sexes. “Intersex” individuals presumably lie on some continuum between the endpoints of “male” or “female.” T advocates thus make people with DSDs pawns in their fight, even though DSDs have nothing to do with transgenderism. DSDs happen to people who are one sex or the other (not both; not “in between”), but something in their genetic makeup has interfered with normal development of the reproductive pathway for whichever sex their body is.

For another thing, having a DSD is not a “gender identity.” DSDs are objectively observable and ascertainable medical conditions. Sometimes there will be no reason to suspect the existence of a DSD until puberty. But the undeniable physiological changes wrought by puberty can be scientifically examined, and the existence of a DSD condition can be either ruled out or confirmed.

It just goes to show that the trans lobby will involuntarily co-opt anyone and anything to their cause, if it will serve their purposes. TAs are users, with no regard to the desires and feelings of others. Many people with DSDs wish the trans lobby would leave them alone, and not use them as a political football. TAs don’t care.

By and large, the people who claim to be “transgender” do not have any DSDs, and have perfectly normal male or female reproductive systems. So the “what about Intersex?” gambit is a non-starter. It is irrelevant.

6. The Supreme Court ruling supposedly “follows the ninth pattern of genocide: denial of identity.”

What are these numbered “patterns of genocide”? What is the evidence that substantiates the relation of any such “patterns” to the practice of “genocide”? How many of these ” patterns” does it take to ascertain whether there is any “genocide” being contemplated or carried out? Is one sufficient? It doesn’t seem so.

The only people denying anyone’s “identity” are the trans activists themselves. They are denying the existence of the manifestly observable sex of their own bodies, in favor of fantasies about being the sex that they actually are not. Trans activists also deny the identity of women as an oppressed class on the basis of their sex.

Why are you talking about “genocide”? The -cide suffix has to do with killing. HomiCIDE is the killing of a human being (“homo” = human). ParriCIDE is the killing of a father (“parri” = “patri-” = father). SuiCIDE is the killing of oneself (“sui” = self). Where is the killing in this supposed “genocide”? AFAICT, no one has been killed, is being killed, or is contemplated to be killed. Without any killing, past, present, or future, how can there be a “genocide”? Methinks he doth protest too much. All that’s happening is that transgender people have to abide by sex classifications, where sex is the relevant consideration. It doesn’t stop them being “trans” at all. It just makes them do their cosplay in the bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, etc. , for their sex. So why is anyone, Lemkin Institute or nonbinary barrister Oscar Davies, yammering on about “genocide”?

7. The Lemkin Institute is alarmed by government rules that demonstrate intentional erasure, and hostile media framing of transgender people as “other.” That’s evidently the mechanics of the “ninth pattern of genocide.” “When you force people out of bathrooms, you’re cutting away at the right to exist themselves.”

Oscar, Oscar, Oscar.

No one is being ” forced out of [all] bathrooms,” such that they don’t have ” a right to exist themselves.” No one is “cutting away at” the right of trans people to exist. Go right ahead and express your “gender identity” — whatever that may mean — however, and however much, you like. No one is stopping you or saying you can’t. Just, when it comes to bathrooms and other things classified by sex, stick to the ones for your sex. Pretty simple.

8. “When genocide prevention experts raise a red flag, you don’t debate semantics. You stop, you reflect, and you act.”

For crying out loud. What makes anyone a “genocide prevention expert”? How do you know this Lemkin Institute has any “genocide prevention” expertise? I’m not impressed. Neither the Lemkin Institute nor you seems to know what “genocide” even means. There’s no killing going on, nor any prospect on the horizon. No genocide. The “red flag” in this case is utterly baseless. It’s Chicken Little, screaming about a disaster that isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen. It’s typical transperbole: if a trans person doesn’t get their way, it’s oppression and literal violence. Get real.

Yes, we noted the false red flag. We stopped, and we reflected on the claims being made. They are bogus. So we continue to act: to restore women’s sex-based rights, and to safeguard children from dangerous interventions.