‘Brexit is Bad For Trans Rights’ Says Young Trans Activist

[stephaniec]

'Brexit is Bad For Trans Rights' Says Young Trans Activist

http://planettransgender.com/brexit-is-bad-for-trans-rights-says-young-trans-activist/

Planet Transgender/Added by Amy Walker on June 23, 2016.

"A young transgender rights activist from the UK, Charlie Craggs, has warned that Britain choosing to leave the European Union during the 'Brexit' vote could lead to marginalized communities finding themselves in worse situations.

Charlie, who has become well known for her Nail Transphobia campaign where she travels around the UK advocating for trans rights, has urged students around the UK to vote to remain within the EU in Thursday's referendum or face the possibility of Boris Johnson as prime minister."

[Peep]

This is just one of many things that makes me really sad about the results of the referendum. I know not everyone that voted leave is as bigoted as people say but if they've voted leave for non-xenophobic reasons, it's because the leave campaign lied to them, and that doesn't feel great either.

However, if Scotland gets another indyref, we should be okay here because Scotland would stay in the EU, and the SNP seems pretty progressive towards LGBT rights - they wanted to legally recognise non-binary genders by 2020 and make legally changing your gender marker a simple statutory declaration - but that won't solve any problems for people in England Wales and N. Ireland...

[Colleen M]

To come out and say it, if Brexit creates the economic consequences generally predicted--and all we're seeing now is really just the panic created by uncertainty--then it's going to cause a global economic slowdown.  That's the sort of thing which makes the American public change parties in the White House.  I'm not as thrilled about that this year as I have been at points in the past. 

[cheryl reeves]

Britain leaving the E.U. gives us Texans hope that soon we can vote to year up the treaty we have with the U.S.A. for alot of us Texans are tired of Washington.

[cheryl reeves]

Britain leaving the E.U. gives us Texans hope that soon we can vote to tear up the treaty we have with the U.S.A. for alot of us Texans are tired of Washington.

[Colleen M]

Britain leaving the E.U. gives us Texans hope that soon we can vote to year up the treaty we have with the U.S.A. for alot of us Texans are tired of Washington.

"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."
— Antonin Scalia

I'd have to agree with Scalia that this one has been argued before, and lost rather thoroughly. 

Also, as best I can make out, the 1845 secession option appears more urban legend than actual treaty anyway.  It's one of those things I hear a lot but nobody can provide an actual cite.  And as already noted the issue was settled rather definitively anyway.   

[cheryl reeves]

Texas became part of the USA due to treaty and that treaty state's Texas can go back to a sovereign nation at any time. I know Texas history,Alaska also has the same treaty with Washington.

[RobynD]

As much as some people would love various parts of the country to separate and those within those places would want to also, i don't believe there is any legal way for that to occur without a constitutional amendment. For the Texas question i point you to these links:

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/annexation/part5/question11.html
http://legisworks.org/sal/5/stats/STATUTE-5-Pg797b.pdf
http://legisworks.org/sal/9/stats/STATUTE-9-Pg108a.pdf
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Interestingly though Texas did have the right to form up to four states.

When the confederate states were granted readmission to the union, and flipped from an occupied territory back to states with full rights, the questions of succession were further addressed. Legally you can't do it. Although that didn't stop them from trying the first time.

Sovereignty is an interesting legal question always. Scotland and others are their own sovereign Kingdoms in their own right. (albeit with one Monarch). Scotland even has its own foreign secretary. It would seem that the interesting question might be whether Scotland becomes independent with Queen Elizabeth or her successor continuing to agreeing to be head of state over both (as she is Queen of Canada for instance), and then would Scotland be admitted to the Commonwealth.

I believe there is a real possibility of a break up of the UK.

In my opinion human rights are usually better served by non-local control of the law. Forcing everyone to abide by laws of the Federal Government or the EU Federal Government gives you a wider consensus and arguably more safety for the countries involved. In localized control, you can have more groups of people banding together and denying rights to Transgender people for instance. However when things go bad on a Federal level, they really go bad. The Federal Government of Russia is an example of this. So this is not an absolute rule.

[paula lesley]

Oops !

Bye bye Brussels   




Paula, X.

[Colleen M]

Texas is fairly definitively debunked, but the good news is that Spain has Catalan and so will throw a screaming hissy fit rather than allow EU membersip to be a carrot extended to a breakaway province like Scotland. 

[Kylo]

Yes, I'm fairly sure it will be bad for trans rights.

With the general steady denial of our rights to use bathrooms and not get murdered in the world, I don't think I was expecting much else. According to Pink News the anti-trans hysteria over bathrooms is here now too.

[AnonyMs]

I expect it will be very bad for the economy for at least a fair while, and that means more cut backs for the NHS. I can only imagine that will made things even worse for medical access than it is now.

[Gwen Rhydderch]

Reductio ad Brexit is getting rather tiresome, especially since it hasn't happened yet and we have no idea what eventual form it will take.