Touching The Void

Update 200

Aug 13, 2023

However, before we get to that film, a big thank you to all of you who follow my Substack and please do share it with others.

As you know, my method is to start with a bit of entertainment on each update ( though sometimes the entertainment is a bit harrowing in itself!) and then I move on to the news. I try to cover items that I have not seen before or where I think there is a different angle or, quite simply, where I want to comment on a matter that all or most of you will already be familiar with ( such as, recently, the story of ‘the lesbian nana’). I’m very grateful to readers who send me suggested pieces and, if you do see something interesting, please do let me know and send me a link to it. I then try and end each update with a bit of fun if possible. Part of the method of enduring this madness is to keep hold of our sense of humour.

All comments, as ever, gratefully received.

You will see below that I have done a “discussion paper“ about the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act and I hope you have time to go through that. It would be very useful to have your comments. I am also attempting to get some comments on that from gender critical/women’s rights lawyers. Anyway, on with the film …

The film is based on the book Touching The Void by mountaineer, Joe Simpson ( who also wrote the excellent book This Game Of Ghosts). In 1985, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, both experienced mountaineers, successfully ascended the previously unclimbed West Face of Siula Grande in Peru. After leaving the summit their descent by way of the North Ridge proved unexpectedly difficult in, at times, stormy weather conditions. Shortly after the pair left the summit Yates falls through a cornice and plummeted down the 4500 foot face they had just climbed but his fall was arrested by their climbing ropes. After a bivouac high on the peak, the pair continued their descent the following morning but then Simpson falls whilst climbing down an ice cliff on the ridge and, landing awkwardly, suffers a badly broken leg. The pair commence a self-rescue with Yates lowering Simpson with ropes down a steep, 3000 foot snow and ice slope while the weather deteriorates into a fierce storm. The total length of rope the pair have is 300 feet, so the lowering process has to be undertaken in a series of repeat manoeuvres. The pair had almost reached the relative safety of the glacier when Yates inadvertently lowers Simpson over the edge of a large cliff, leaving him suspended on the rope in mid-air. Yates arrests his partner's fall, but cannot see the predicament he is in, nor hear him over the howling wind.

Unable to pull Simpson back up the cliff and gradually losing traction in the loose snow, Yates realizes, after about an hour and a half, that he is gradually being pulled from his unbelayed stance and will eventually fall in excess of 150 feet to his almost certain death. Yates decides that the only option available to him to avoid being pulled from the cliff is to cut the rope connecting him with Simpson.

You will already have worked out ( since he wrote a book about it!) that Joe Simpson survived but, as to how he managed this amazing descent on his own, with now two broken legs, you’ll have to either watch the film or read the book.It is an extraordinary example of endurance.

The Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act

A discussion paper

This paper was inspired by EDI Jester bringing to our attention a tweet from Michael Foran saying that, if the GRA was repealed, it would have to be replaced with something else.

I will start by looking at the first relevant European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Goodwin v UK ( application no 28957/95) 11 July 2002.

Christine Goodwin was a trans-identifying male who argued before the ECtHR that he had suffered detriments under articles 8 and 12 and other articles of the European Convention and that those articles had been breached.

Goodwin was successful in the challenge under articles 12 and 8.

Article 12 states:

“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”

In terms of the challenge under article 12 with regard to marriage, the court concluded (at paras 103 and 104) that:

“The Court finds no justification for barring the transsexual from enjoying the right to marry under any circumstances. The Court concludes that there has been a breach of Article 12 of the Convention in the present case."

In fact, of course, subsequent to this case, same-sex marriage was legalised in the United Kingdom, and this made this part of the judgment academic.

Article 8 states:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

With regard to article 8, the Court concluded at para 93:

“Having regard to the above considerations, the court finds that the respondent Government can no longer claim that the matter falls within their margin of appreciation, save as regards the appropriate means of achieving recognition of the right protected under the Convention. Since there are no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, it reaches the conclusion that the fair balance that is inherent in the Convention now tilts decisively in favour of the applicant. There has, accordingly, been a failure to respect her right to private life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention."

However, who were the court referring to in this regard?

At para 85, it is stated:

“The Court, accordingly attaches less importance to the lack of evidence of a common European approach to the resolution of the legal and practical problems posed, than to the clear and uncontested evidence of a continuing international trend in favour not only of increased social acceptance of transsexuals but of legal recognition of the new sexual identity of post – operative transsexuals.”

At para 87, it is stated:

“It may be noted, however, that exceptions are already made to the historic basis of the birth register system, namely, in the case of legitimisation or adoptions, where there is a possibility of issuing updated certificates to reflect a change in status after birth, to make a further exception in the case of transsexuals (a category estimated as including some 2000 to 5000 persons in the United Kingdom according to the Interdepartmental Working Group Report, p. 26) would not, in the Court's view, pose the threat of overturning the entire system.”

Therefore it would appear that this decision is meant to relate to post – operative transsexuals, whereas the GRA is much wider than that and, it would appear, unnecessarily wide.

In terms of the repeal of the GRA (leaving aside the question of marriage, since that has become academic, as I mentioned above), there would appear to be two ways forward:

The GRA could be replaced with a new Act which just related to post – operative transsexuals.
The GRA could simply be repealed without any replacement. The logic here would be that the Goodwin judgment does appear to be a very unsatisfactory judgment and the UK government could just say that, if anyone takes a further case once the GRA is repealed, they will fight that in the ECtHR and try and get a different decision.

However, there may be a problem caused by a subsequent French case before the ECtHR, namely A.P.,Garcon and Nicot v France ( application no 79885/12) 06 July 2017 . In this case, the ECtHR concluded that the French Government’s insistence that, to get a gender recognition certificate, you had to be a post-operative transsexual was, in itself, a breach of article 8.

This would mean that the only way forward in terms of repeal of the GRA would be my option 2 above.

I trust that the Party of Women will have, as one of their policies, the repeal of the GRA but this is likely to be, in a sense, an academic argument if Labour come to power after the 2024 general election in the UK since they are not going to agree to repeal the GRA. Additionally, I note that the Tories have had 13 years in which to do something about the GRA but have done nothing about it. In other words, even if the Tories do manage to stay in power at the next election, it is probably unlikely that they will do anything about the GRA. I would emphasise that I want the GRA to be repealed and think we should campaign for that but I am simply looking at the political realities.

I think, therefore, that our emphasis will have to be making sure that self ID is not introduced by the Westminster Government. In this regard, the use of the Scotland Act to prevent the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill becoming law has been essential and it is hoped that the challenge by the Scottish Government will be rejected by the courts since that Bill is clearly in conflict with the Equality Act. I also agree with the Equality and Human Rights Commission when they say that we need to make it clear (by an amendment) that “sex” in the Equality Act means “biological sex” ( see also, in this regard, the guide from Sex Matters immediately below).

For information with regard to single sex exceptions under the Equality Act, please see the very helpful guide here from Sex Matters:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/sex-in-the-equality-act/#:~:text=Schedule%2012%20of%20the%20Equality,sex%20on%20an%20exceptional%20basis.

If it is made clear that “sex” under the Equality Act means “biological sex” then that would also make it clear that these single sex exceptions apply to biological sex. However, the problem with the single sex exceptions under the Act is that there is no compulsion.

In 2022, the government did make it clear that public buildings should have two sets of single sex toilets for biological men and biological women. See here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/all-public-buildings-to-have-separate-male-and-female-toilets

Kemi Badenoch is now strengthening that guidance (see the articles below).

This is extremely important and very welcome, of course, But we need it made absolutely clear that sex means biological sex not only in the case of toilets, but also in the case of changing rooms, rape crisis centres, women’s refuges and women’s sport.

We also need a ban on gender affirming care, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery with regard to children. This has been achieved in a large number of American States.

All thoughts on this gratefully received.

Jonathan Walker in The Daily Express( Women only loos rule will ‘protect dignity’ 12 August) reports:

The rule, hailed as a move to protect privacy and dignity, will also apply to buildings undertaking major refurbishment.

The Government acted because organisations are increasingly introducing unisex loos as they fear being accused of discriminating against transgender people.

Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch said: "It is important that everybody has privacy and dignity when using public facilities. Yet the move towards 'gender neutral' toilets has removed this fundamental right for women and girls."

Ms Badenoch, who is also Secretary of State for Business and Trade, added: "These proposals will ensure every new building in England provides separate male and female or unisex facilities, and publish guidance to explain the difference, protecting the dignity, privacy and safety of all."

An exception will be made for facilities where the whole room, not just a cubicle, is designed to be used by one person at a time and can be locked from the inside.

In addition, existing rules requiring schools to provide separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged eight or over will be strengthened.

Ministers believe the growing rise of neutral gender facilities raises concerns about privacy and dignity, particularly for women, as well as potentially causing longer queues.

They are especially worried about the impact on women who may need to use facilities more often because of pregnancy or sanitary needs.

A new short consultation about how precisely the changes should work will open tomorrow.

A YouGov poll last year found 87 per cent wanted separate toilets for men and women. Some 35 per cent felt unisex toilets should be available for those that want them.

I can’t yet locate the consultation that is mentioned so if you notice it, please let me know.

Ms Badenoch has also written an opinion piece for The Telegraph on this matter:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/gender-neutral-lavatories-are-an-invasion-of-womens-privacy/

Whoa!! That was all very heavy duty for update 200!! Since it’s my party ( and I’ll cry if I want to 😎) let’s intersperse here one of my favourite Western shoot outs from True Grit which I previously featured in update 91:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/true-grit

“I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.”

“Fill up your hands , you son of a b**ch.”

Ooh that was good, now I want a bit more!

SPOILER ALERT

This is the last scene so, if necessary, move swiftly on. It is my excuse for featuring the marvellous theme song by Iris DeMent.

“Time just gets away from us.”

Scouts Go Woo Woo

As a former Scout myself, this is definitely one of those FFS moments!

Isaac Crowson in The Daily Express ( Woke Scouts are told, don't call Guides girls 12 August) reports:

Scout leaders have unleashed a woke storm by telling children not to use the term "Girl Guides".

A style guide for the 113-year-old organisation has also outlawed the words "fireman" and "postman".

Aimed at people writing material for the organisation, the guide is currently promoted on its website.

In an A-Z of words and phrases, it says: "Refer to 'Guides' rather than 'Girl Guides'. Never use 'he' or 'his' to cover all genders - use 'they' or 'their' or rearrange your sentence.

"For example, rather than 'the winner should collect his prize', try 'the winner should collect their prize. Don't use terms that presume men are the default, for example, don't use 'postmen' or 'fireman' when 'postal workers' or 'firefighters' would do. It's also 'humankind', not 'mankind'. 'Actor' and 'comedian' cover people of all genders."

It continues: "Family details and marital statuses are rarely relevant, unless the story is about family or marriage. Don't describe a woman as 'a mother of three', or define her using her partner's identity."

But one mum, whose child attends a Scout group in Derby, said: "It's shocking. It's like they are trying to erase what a boy and girl is. Children of that age just need to be left alone and allowed to develop.

"Life is confusing enough. I thought the one place they could be free of this nonsense would be the Scouts. I just want my child to become more confident and empowered about life and not constantly fear of saying the wrong thing."

Well said that mum ( emphasis on ‘mum’ there, Scout leaders).

The Situation in India

Fascinating podcast by Louise Perry of Maiden Mother Matriarch interviewing Vaishnavi Sundar. Vaishnavi Sundar is an Indian filmmaker who set up Limesoda Films. Her most recent work was a film called Dysphoric - why women are choosing to identify as trans in India and across the world. On the podcast they discuss Transgenderism in India and the role of the Hijra, the importance of homophobia in understanding this phenomenon and why so many Indian feminists are embracing western gender ideology. Vaishnavi is like an Indian Pose Parker but , unlike Posie who has an army of us folks behind her, Vaishnavi is quite isolated it seems. It is amazing to hear how captured much of Indian society is by the gender madness.

And finally…

One of my favourite comedians is Billy Connolly ( who, sadly, is now suffering from Parkinson’s Disease), so you’ll forgive me if I end with The Old Seaside Town Far Away.

Altogether now:

a-dee-oo-leh-hee -oh-deh-lay-ee wooh-wooh!