Continuing with the work of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court. A useful background informaiton to the work of the Commision and Court is that most incidence of violence against ‘transwomen of colour’ as the gender identity trope has it, happens in Latin America, with the highest numbers in Brazil, as this map evidences.
In 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBTI persons. In 2014 a special mechanism by means of the institution of a Rapporteurship on the Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex (LGBTI) Persons was also created. Its latest published Report is from 2022. This work of mine does not intend, at least for now, to delve too deep into the expanding production of policy material and soft law materials on gender theory. It is indeed a thankless task, as there is an entire cottage industry dedicated to producing legitimate sounding literature on this ideology. My work is intended solely to uncover a legal and scientific basis, if any, for this immense edifice of increasingly unreasonable demands presented as human rights claims.
The Report includes the work done by all 11 special rapporteurs. This is what it says about the work in LGBTI mandate:
43. With regards to the Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Persons, the IACHR followed up on the situation through nine press releases. On one hand, the Commission welcomed the decision that declares as unconstitutional the criminalization of consensual sexual activity between LGBTI persons in Saint Kitts and Nevis; it also celebrated the life, achievements, and resilience of trans, non-binary, and gender-diverse persons in the framework of the International Transgender Day of Visibility; and welcomed the ruling that declared as unconstitutional those sections in the Sexual Offences Act of Antigua and Barbuda, in force since the colonial era, that criminalized consensual acts between same-sex persons. In addition, it welcomed the announcement of the presidential veto to the “Protection of Life and Family” draft bill in Guatemala. Furthermore, it called on the States to adopt comprehensive measures to prevent violence based on prejudice against lesbians; and in a joint statement with UN Human Rights, the Commission expressed its concern for the increase of stigmatizing narratives that incite hatred, legitimize discrimination, or even incite violence based on prejudice against LGBTIQ+ persons.
The statement is meaningless when not referring to anything beyond LGB. No law prohibits relationships between intersex persons (that is what the I stands for). I will ignore the ‘celebration’ of non existent identities such as non binary to just note that the forced teaming between LGB and T is pushed even further with the inclusion of queer + identities, which are not defined anywhere in any legal instrument. This is not what human rights law should be about. There is absolutely no legal basis for, and no political agreement around, ideas such as queernness and self defined bogus identities such as the ‘+’ community.
The forced teaming also underpins the shift towards gender based violence to include transwomen in the statistics of violence against women and femicides.
However, it is clear that acts of violence against transwomen are the combined effect of transphobia and homophobia. Not sexism. Transwomen are attacked not because they are women, but because they are transgender males and presumed also to be gay. While the majority of transwomen in the US claim to be ‘lesbians’ (i.e. attracted to women, i.e. straight makes) violence against transwomen tends to affect those who are attracted to males, i.e. they are gay men, including those that work in prostitution. The Commission explored in detail the connection between gender and violence and discrimination in the cases of T.B. and S.H and Henry & Edwards v Jamaica.
The first case, from 2020, concerns two gay men, T.B. and S.H.. T.B. describes himself as a gay man in his statements about the abouse but is presented by the Petitioner, the organisation Aids-Free World as a transwoman, both of whom suffered abuse and discriminaton. This organisation is not a Jamaican one, but advocates internationally for LGBT rights. While T.B. clearly presents himself as a gay man throughout his testimony, the Petitioner presents him as a woman and the Commission uses female pronouns to refer to him.
The Offences Against the Person Act in Jamaica criminalises sodomy, defined as anal sex between two males. The application is both for the abuse suffered unjustly by these two males basically on their basis of their sexual orientation, and in the second case their trans status, and the existence of this law violating the principle of non discrimination and equality before the law and other rights, such as the right to privacy, protected by the Convention. The text of the Act makes it clear that the offence involves only same sex male intercourse or bestiality:
76. (Unnatural Crime): Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.
77. (Attempt): Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.
79 (Outrages on Decency): Any male person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour
Additionally, the statement by T.B. clarifies that the discrimination and abuse he suffered were related to his sexual orientation. The use of female pronouns to refer to him is especially absurd given his recollection of the facts:
On Saturday March 12, 2011 (…) I went up into the town to Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) to get something to eat. I was sitting at the table with a friend (…) who has a very feminine appearance and was staring at some guys. The man came and said “Weh yuh a look pan mi fa batty-boy, stop look pan mi” (What are you looking at me for, battyboy, stop looking at me). I feared a confrontation, so I got up and left (…) the guys came after us while ranting and raving, saying to anyone who would listen “Yuh nuh see a two batty boy? Yuh nuh si dem a gay? Wi nuh wan no fish roun yah! (You don’t see they are two batty-boys? You don’t see they are gay? We don’t want any fish (gays) around here. The men were mimicking sound of gunshots (…) I crossed the street to get away
Later he adds:
In Jamaica it is very difficult to access stigma-free public health care as a gay man, especially one who looks like me and is very effeminate (...) In 2009 when I was 17, I went for my first and only HIV test at a public health clinic in Jamaica (…) however, the treatment that I received caused me to leave the clinic before I took the tested and I refused to return to another public health care facility in Jamaica for any other medical care. (…) the nurse handed me a questionnaire to complete. Among other things it had questions about my previous sexual partners. I was afraid to fill it out truthfully because I had only ever had sex with men, which is a crime in Jamaica. Completing the questionnaire would be admitting that I broke the law and could spend up to 10 years in prison. I also did not want to expose myself to further ridicule by admitting that I was gay. So, when the nurse was not looking, I quickly gathered my belongings and left. In 2011 a friend in Trinidad heard about my situation and paid for me to visit him. He promised to let me stay with him and take care of me. However, when I arrived, and he saw how effeminate I was he refused to take me to his home. He said that he was concerned about what the neighbors would say. I ended up sleeping on the streets in Trinidad for eight months. During that time, I met some Trans women who were also homeless, and they helped me to get hormones to start transitioning. (….) When I left Jamaica for Holland in 2012, I sent a message via email to my mother and told her where I was, but she only responded to ask for money and nothing else. She did not ask how I was doing or how I was surviving (…) I miss my family, my home and my country but I know that I cannot return safely until Jamaica gets rid of the anti-buggery law and becomes more accepting of LGBT people like me.20
The second case is also from 2020 and also challenges Jamaica’s Offences Against the Person Act. Gareth Henry is a gay man who suffered abused and discrimination becauses of his sexual orientation; Simone Edwards is a lesbian woman who also suffered abuse and discrimination because of her sexual orientation. This case is even clearer that the issue is homophobic discriminiation and laws criminalising homosexuality. To describe these two individual as LGBTI persons is an attempt to erase the nature of their abuse. And yet this is wha the Commission does.
It is clear that Jamaican law criminalises same sex intercourse, not gender identity. And none of the individuals concerned in the two cases identifies as transgender, regardless of the attempt of the Commission and the LGBTI organisations to describe T.B. as such, while he claims a male gay identity.
Reframing the narrative of the events as LGBTI discrimination and transforming the anti-sodomy law into a law against LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is incorrect. No single lesbian is affected by the law and the law has nothing to say about the right of people to express a gender identity incongruent with their sex (considering also that a considerable percentage of males expressing a feminine gender identity are not homosexuals). This is just an artificial attempt to retrofit gender identity into sex orientation as the scope of protection and the extent of the right being protected. This criticism could be levied in general, outside the scope of legal provisions and the naked attempt to rewrite the law, for the decision to include transgender individuals in the sexual orientation (lesbian, gay and bisexual) moniker. There is no logical reason why gender identity (which, as one may remember, we are told we all possess) should be considered together with non heterosexual sexual orientation. Historically, it is true, a definite small subset of transsexual gay males (and an even tinier subset of transsexual gay females) were of course involved in the fight for an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There was a clear demarcation between them and cross-dressers and transvesties, men who were overwhelmingly heterosexuals. There was almost no example of young girls and boys, mostly girls, who rejected their sexed body before or around puberty. And there was no claim that ‘we all have some form of gender identity’ or that people are ‘cisgender’.
These cases, and others, evidence the attempt to retrofit gender identity into a historical facts about LGB rights up to and including presenting a gay male as a woman because he is effeminate.
Alessandra Hi just me Brett I didn't financially Subscribe to your account on First Page after following you on Twitter BUT SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED EITHER TO ANSWER AS A GP OR PRIVATE DOCTOR OR PHYSCHIATRY JUST BECAUSE SHE'S A CONSTABLE RICHARD AFP POLICEWOMAN ACTUALLY WITH THE POLICE OR ANY ONE ELSE WHO'S GOT A LEGALLY PRIVILEGED ISSUED WEOPAN LIJE A HANDGUN TASERS HANDCUFFS ETC TO REVENUE 10 KLMS OVER THE SPEED LIMIT AND THEM OVERULE TOP PHYSCHIATRY DR WHO'S VARIFIED ME AND APPROVED MY DRIVERS LICENCE ONLY ONE MONTH BEFOREHAND JUAT BECAUSE SHE'S MISTAKENLY REVENUED ME DRIVING PAST HER ILLEGALLY PARKED POLICE VEHICLE WITH HER LOOKING FOR REVENUES PAYMENTS DRIVING OFF THE SIDEWALK AT 100 KLMS OVER THE SPEED LIMIT WT F IS THAT LAW PERSUING ME TO BOOK ME FOR 10 KLMS OVER SPEED LIMIT AND ALSO STEALING MY DRIVERS LICENCE PHOTO CARD REFUSING TO GIVE OT BACK BREATHALISING TEST ALSO STILL NO REPORTS ON THAT EITHER AND ILLEGALLY SUSPENDING MY DRIVERS LICENCE WHICH 2AS NEVER SUSPENDED AS SHE'S LYING ABOUT NIW IM HOUSEBOUND RESTRICTED AGAIN WITHOUT ANY SERVICES INCLUDING FOOD MEDICINES DENTAL CLINIC HOSPITALS SHOPS OR BUS SERVICES TRANSPORT NOTHING MO SHOPS OR ANYTHING FOR MILES AND SHE'S ORDERING A HOME DEATH AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE THERES NO TRANSPORT AVAILABLE TO ENTER OR EXIT CANBERRA'S OAKS ESTATE 2620 AND YOU WANT YOUR WOMEN'S VOICE HEARD??? YES OR NO REALLY REAL WOMEN DOCTORS LAWYER EXAMPLE DON'T NEED TO TALK AND GET THEIR VOICE HEARD IT'S ALREADY HEARD LEGALLY IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW AS WOMEN JUDGES DOCTORS LAWYERS EXAMPLE WHAT CENTURY DO YOU LIVE IN WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT WAS GRANTED OVER 100 YEARS AGO WHY DON'T YIU HAVE SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT RIGHTS 100 YEARS LATER SINCE CAROLYN CHISHOLM, ELIZABETH FRY DEPICTED ON EVERY AUSTRALIA $5.00 NOTE SINCE 100 YEARS AGO THAT'S 1800,S HELLO AND NOWADAYS YOU WANT TO DRIVE HIGH SPEED PERSUIT POLICE VEHICLE AND GUNHO TOO AND YOU WANT MEN'S RESPECTED TRUST