Home Bio Photos General Contact

Fundamental Human Rights

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.

Abstract

This paper presents the position that groups or individuals that defame or vilify those that express certain views contrary to their own views, violate fundamental human rights.

The argument presented here, is that many "radical trans activist" rights lobby groups are actually hate groups, notwithstanding that such groups actually claim the higher moral ground and claim that those they express the hate to, are the alleged haters. This is not to claim that all those that advocate for trans rights are hate groups, or that all transgenders are radical, or activists, but that some, clearly are. They are hate groups because they clearly advocate and practice the rejection of legally recognized, fundamental human rights. 

The European Charter Of Human Rights

Article 3 - Right to the integrity of the person

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.

Article 10 -  Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 

Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

These rights apply equally to everyone, irrespective of any otherwise minority status. They apply to the individual who, is the ultimate minority. However, if those expressions impinge on the ECHR protected rights of others, in first instance, those impinging rights are restricted such that they do not infringe on those other's rights. In the event that both claims of rights impinge on the other's rights, they must be resolved by a process of evaluating who is subjected to the most & least harm.  

For example:

1 Person A expresses the view that Donald Trump "is a nasty, repugnant misogynist shitbag"

2 Person B expresses the the view that  Donald Trump "is a wonderfully person, truly an advocate of woman's rights"

The ECHR position is that both are free to express their individual opinions. Whether one is correct or not, is irrelevant.

A conflict will arise if say, person A declares that their right of mental integrality is being threatened by the alleged viewpoints of B such that B must not be allowed to express their view.

This argument could of course, be equally applied by person B, thus there is an equally opposing view that if A's claim were valid, so would B's also be valid.. 

In this particular case, it is inherent in the notion freedom of expression that some will feel insulted, offended or may well suffer mental stress. However,  such considerations must be given lesser weight in order to avoid the concept of freedom of expression becoming meaningless.

Thus person A & person B are both free to express their opinions, and have no right to suppress the opinions of the other's.

Description of The Problem 

There is a very well documented position for many of the major trans rights groups, these are:

Trans Position 

"A trans woman is a woman"

2   "A trans man is a man"

Such that any dissent from these  positions in any manner whatsoever attracts from those groups the derogatory slur of "transphobic" and "transphobia", with the very real consequences than many have lost the livelihoods. A male simple stating that "I am just not sexually attracted to those born with penises" will attract the utmost condemnation and abuse.

Alternatively,  there is also a very well documented position from human rights orientated groups, this is:

Human Rights Position

Definition: Woman

Noun:

Adult Human Female

House of Lords debate, Feb 2021, Professor Lord Robert Winston:

“Every single one of us in this chamber, every single person outside in the street and every citizen of the United Kingdom was born from a mother’s uterus… The fact is that only a woman can give rise to a baby."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston

A "woman" is scientifically defined by that entity of a species that carries the offspring. 

It will be shown here that the radical trans activist position is inherently incompatible with fundamental human rights.

The Problem

The issue with the radical trans activist's demand that all submit to the "a trans women is a women" narrative is of course, not the word "women" itself, but the underlying requirement that heterosexual males actually think of those with penises as someone that they must consider as a viable sexual partner in principle. The narrative demands that heterosexual males give up their own sexual mental identity to those of the the trans activists. Only the mental state of the radical trans person is considered ethically valid, all others being transphobic.

This is truly what it means when the radical tran's activist states "I am absolutely a woman, your disagreement is because you are a transphobe". They demand that heterosexuals treat them "as if" they are truly biological females in every way, with total disregard for the actual metal sexuality of the heterosexual male.  The radical tran's activist takes the view that their right to think as they do, mandates that all others must also think as they do.  

The demand that "trans woman are woman" is in reality, a demand that males must be "cured" of their heterosexuality.

Human Rights Violations

This demand of the "radical trans activists" that all must switch their own mental sexual state to that of theirs is a direct violation of article 3 of the ECHR, the right to ones own mental integrity and article 10 right to freedom of thought and conscience. The distinction in the potential counter claim that the the heterosexuals claim is an infringement on  the radical trans activist rights under 3, is that the heterosexual is not demanding that the radical trans activist state that "transwoman are men" with any sanctions or otherwise. The radical trans activist are free to state any delusion that they desire.

The demand of the "radical trans activists" that all must cease and desist all promotion of alternative views is a direct violation of article 10 & 11, the right to free expression of opinions. 

The "humans rights" position is simply that there are, essentially, two biological/physical sexes, with no underlying implications at all. Females and males are able to think and act in whatever way they desire, with no restrictions as to what views individuals may present to anyone. There is no denying that trans woman are free to mentally decide who they are, and if they find some male that accepts them as they are, its simply a non issue. The humans rights issue is that the radical trans activists are denying the right of others to their own mental state. Its one-sided in favor of the radical trans activists which has no reasonable or ethical justification. 

For Politicians

95% of the voting population are heterosexual. Take the hint. 

George Orwell

"If you want to know who rules over your, look at who you are not allowed to criticize"

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four"

"Newspeak - the control of peoples words to control their thoughts"

Sex Pronouns

Notwithstanding the reference to "gender", pronouns are not based on gender. Pronouns are based on sex. Until quite recently gender and sex meant the same. They both meant sex. This has allowed false narratives to run amuck.

Thus pronouns are the words that identify an individuals biological sex to much of the population. 

An individual owns their own names and their thoughts, they do not own the thoughts of others, nor do they own the language used by others. 

A demand that others uses the language of the requesters choice, is thus a demand to own the thoughts of others. 

This is a direct violation of ECHR Articles 3, 10 & 11, thus mandating such action is itself, hate speech.

Summary

The reality is, there are very few that have any hint of animosity towards the transgender community and recognize transgender rights to behave, essentially in any way they desire. However, it is clear that a some radical trans activists have created a stunning climate of fear such that as a matter of practical reality, anyone that disagrees in any aspect whatsoever with their narrative results in the most outrageous livelihood cancellations, disparagements and distortions of the points made, that any rational person that cares about justice human rights and fairness should not be expected to let slide by the activists trans narrative with impunity. That is, any disagreement with the radical trans narrative is automatically a "transphobe". That is, a claim is that those that disagree always have some malevolent intent such that they do not even have the right to even discuss the issue. This is of course, the way the radical trans ideology propagates so successfully, by preventing the population at large from even being aware of the extensive rational arguments that negate such a radical ideology.

As to whether "radical trans activist woman" actually have some of the main stereotypically characteristics associated with females, one might consider the somewhat extensive examples here:

https://terfisaslur.com/

"A trans woman is a woman Jim, but not as we know it"

Links

Gender & Biology

Social & Physical Constructs

Transphobic

Equality Act

 

© Kevin Aylward 2021

This work may be freely published provided it is done so without charge

so long as this source is noted

Website last modified 27th March 2021

www.kevinaylward.co.uk