I want to explain a few things and then it might be clearer why UK trans people are upset.
In 2001 I married my wife, Sylvia.
In 2005 I started medical transition. For the state to recognise this I had to submit to standards of "care" which were humiliating, degrading and which placed me at risk of violence.
But I did it "by the book"
As I did it "by the book", the NHS agreed to reregister me as female, which makes sense because my anatomy now is.
In 2007 I had sex reassignment surgery. This had to be signed off by two mental health professionals, "by the book", and it was.
In 2008 I applied for gender recognition. This involved signing a statutory obligation, stating that I promised, BY LAW, to live fully as female for the rest of my life. As this was done, "by the book", the government promised that it would treat me as such.
Its first act as treating me as female was to annul our marriage because it was a same sex marriage and those were not allowed.
The state then reissued my birth certificate, correcting the "mistake" it had ori
... mehr anzeigenI want to explain a few things and then it might be clearer why UK trans people are upset.
In 2001 I married my wife, Sylvia.
In 2005 I started medical transition. For the state to recognise this I had to submit to standards of "care" which were humiliating, degrading and which placed me at risk of violence.
But I did it "by the book"
As I did it "by the book", the NHS agreed to reregister me as female, which makes sense because my anatomy now is.
In 2007 I had sex reassignment surgery. This had to be signed off by two mental health professionals, "by the book", and it was.
In 2008 I applied for gender recognition. This involved signing a statutory obligation, stating that I promised, BY LAW, to live fully as female for the rest of my life. As this was done, "by the book", the government promised that it would treat me as such.
Its first act as treating me as female was to annul our marriage because it was a same sex marriage and those were not allowed.
The state then reissued my birth certificate, correcting the "mistake" it had originally made when it recorded me as male, "by the book".
In 2009 Sylvia and I married for the second time, in a same sex civil partnership, which was done "by the book", because the state regarded me as female and I was bound by law to be female.
In 2013 we married again, because the state decided that same sex marriage was in fact allowed after all. This was done, "by the book". Despite having been married for 12 years, we had to submit ourselves to individual questioning to prove our relationship was genuine, "by the book".
In April of 2025 the state turned round and told me that I had been mistaken. That it never regarded me as female. That I was male the whole time. That the marriage it annulled because it was a same sex marriage was never a same sex marriage (but it stays annulled). That the civil partnership in 2009 never really happened because "opposite sex" civil partnerships were not allowed in 2009.
And that the legal obligation I have to live as female for the rest of my life, which I signed and gave up my marriage for, is still in effect but also if I keep following it, I am breaking the law and subject to arrest. As it's still valid, presumably if I don't keep following it, I am also breaking the law and subject to arrest.
The law of the land simultaneously requires me to be both a man and a woman and if I do either then I am breaking the law and subject to arrest.
At every stage I did what the state asked me to, even though it was humiliating, degrading and cruel.
And it kept moving the goalposts, and reneging on the agreements it made, whilst continuing to hold me to them even when they are now mutually contradictory.
Apparently this is "all my fault" and I should have known that this would be the consequences of my actions when I started medical transition 2 decades ago.
Perhaps you can now appreciate why we are upset?
Thomas Arend
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Virgil Tibbs 🏳️🌈 🇺🇦 🇬🇱
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •und unabhängig von der generellen Katastrophe, klingelt die AfD an der Tür und will das dann antürlich auch,.
caravantravellers 🌈
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Kindgerecht ist sehr wichtig für sehr viele der Entscheider¹.
¹ selbstverständlich sind damit alle Geschlechter erfasst.
Leela Torres
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •EricGeneric
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Rapha Mack hat dies geteilt.
Dr. Felix Sühlmann-Faul
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Jetzt noch den Unwillen Kund tun. Deutschland ist das Zünglein an der Waage bei der bevorstehenden Abstimmung im EU-Rat.
Copy und Paste:
🔴 Die Adressen der Politiker:innen
🔴 Ein offener Brief mit deutlichen Forderungen und klaren Argumenten gegen die #Chatkontrolle
privascore.org/anschreiben-geg…
Anschreiben als Kopiervorlage gegen Chatkontrolle - privascore.org
privascore.orgGemini
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Beim AFD-Verbot hingegen muss man ewig prüfen, begutachten und abwägen, weil das scheitern könnte. Scheinbar gibt's dafür nur einen Anlauf.
daranus
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Jaddy
Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag • •mögen das
isbjørn, axebos, Elyastorah und RockWolf mögen das.
teilten dies erneut
isbjørn und axebos haben dies geteilt.
BlueLaser
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Fabian【ファビアン】🏳️🌈
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Franz van Betteraey
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Wikinaut
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •haui ☭ 🇵🇸
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Es geht leider nicht um verstehen. "Grundrechte" sind immer nur so lange unverrückbar wie es den Mächtigen in den Kram passt.
Unser Fehler ist zu glauben dass wir rechte ohne Kampf bekommen.
Die Chatkontrolle wird kommen weil sie Profitabel ist. Erst wenn der Profitzwang weg ist fällt auch der Datenhandel.
horald
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •⚖️🤔 Ich glaube, viele haben es noch nicht verstanden. Wenn sie das Gesetz umsetzen, schneiden sie sich ins eigene Fleisch. 🔪 Der "Teufel", den man dadurch heraufbeschwört, wird man so schnell nicht wieder los. Sie müssen vorsichtiger sein und die langfristigen Folgen bedenken! ⏳💭 #Gesetzgebung #Vorsicht #LangfristigeFolgen #TeufelRufen #DenkenVorDemHandeln
jm1982
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •JamesBont
Als Antwort auf linuzifer • • •Ach, ich wäre dafür, wenn mir das Gesetz und die Justiz garantieren könnten dass Politiker für Populismus und Fakes (Lügen um sich selbst einen Vorteil zu verschaffen) ihre Ämter verlieren könnten und diese ihre Immunität verlieren würden und dann strafrechtlich verfolgt und ggf. verurteilt zu werden.
Dies könnte die politische und allgemeine Bildung stärken.
Was mich stört ist diese Immunisierung, welche selbst Verbrecher und Betrüger umfangreichen Schutz bietet.