BORN A MAN, RETIRE A WOMAN!

I see that the oxymoronic European Court of Justice has ruled that a British law which granted pension rights to transsexuals based on their original gender was illegal.

The EU's highest court said in Brussels that "the right not be discriminated against on grounds of sex is one of the fundamental human rights". Thus. "Sarah  Meade" born a man in 1942, is now able to retire at age 60 instead of 65, because of a sex change operation in 2001. The EU's highest court said in Brussels that "the right not be discriminated against on grounds of sex is one of the fundamental human rights". Great idea, so why don't all of us men have a sex change operation when we reach 59 and see how the Government fancies dealing with the crippling financial consequences?  After all, it's a "fundamental human right" - RIGHT?

Comments

[Beano]

I thought they were supposed to have raised the age of retirement for women from 60 to 65 in order to comply with some gender equality ruling from Brussels, I presume then that this is not the case?

[dark pilgrim]

people of natural impulses should not be forced to share the work place with the morally degenerate and potentially unhygenic.

[Colm]

That's what I thought too. Perhaps it is being phased in. What if you're a pre-op treansexual. can you get the pension at 62.5 ?

[Sox]

They have raised the pension age for women but it is being phased in. It will be about another 5 years before it is 65 for women

[Colm]

"that's what I though too" - was in response to beano , not dark pilgrims comment.

[Peter Turner]

Nature says that if you have two X chromosomes (XX) you are female and if you are XY you are male. However, it has now been decided that if you have a sex change operation then this no longer applies. In other words - nature no longer knows best. Mind you, there have always been poor individuals with odd genetic makeup e.g. XXX, XXY, XYY and so on. However, I cannot see this as a reason for for the courts to ignore basic genetics in their rulings. But, there again, I'm old fashioned in many of my opinions.

[jaun p.]

the thing is these operations dont make you a woman, they give (highly limited) hormonal similarities and an athsetic apperance suggestive of a womans. Now I'm fine with this so long as you can pay the doctor to do it, gender "realignment*" on the national health service is a disgrace.
Is it right that that the law should indulge what is ultimatly an elaborate fantasy, and , is it not possible to suggest, what could be a mental disfunction ? (please consider there may be a difference between mark almond / paul o' grady and someone who feels the urge to get his bits loped off)

(* - does no one find it frightening, as illustrated by this term, that p.c. impostions can be put upon the very sciences ? Its suggestive of the roles of science / religion in the dark ages.....)

[NRG]

David, i suspect you'll reach 59 before the rest of us, can you report back on the operation? Davina has a nice ring to it.

[Colm]

Only if the surgeon constructs a nice ring ;)

[jaun]

oh colm i just realised, thats awful you perv........ :0 !!

[Alison]

"Youre terrible Muriel"

[Ogra]

Its seems reasonable, we should respect peoples wish to change gender, and not to, would indeed be a rejection of their human rights.

[j.p.]

why should we pay for punrequired cosmetic proceedure when there people dying of aids in the third world, give him a cold shower, some national service and tell him /her to wise up.

[dearieme]

He will have paid higher Life Insurance premiums because he was a man, and, if he's got a private pension, he'll get a lower annuity because he's a woman. Perhaps he needs an earlier Old Age Pension to compensate?