Comments on: European court backs transsexual pension rights http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1553.html/ PinkNews.co.uk Gay News (UK and world) from Pink News - all the gay news for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community in the UK and beyond- thegaynews from Pink News Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:37:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Zeke, Florida USA http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1553.html/comment-page-1/#comment-3542 Zeke, Florida USA Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:27:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1553.html#comment-3542 So let me get this straight. This woman went to court for sex discrimination because she was not getting her pension at 60 because the government was considering her original sex as male, which would mean she wouldn't be eligible for her pension until 65. The court rules that she, as a woman, is being discriminated against on the basis of sex, by not allowing her to receive her pension five years ealier than she could if she were a man because, "the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex is one of the fundamental human rights." AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO FINDS THIS TO BE IRONIC AND OUTRAGEOUS?How can a court rule that you have to give a woman her pension five years earlier than a man because to not do so would be sex discrimination?I'm not English, but from what I've seen of English law, especially family law, English men must be totally castrated. Where are the lawsuits by men, based on sex discrimination, to challenge this sexist law? Are English men OK with this biased, unfair and sexist law? So let me get this straight. This woman went to court for sex discrimination because she was not getting her pension at 60 because the government was considering her original sex as male, which would mean she wouldn't be eligible for her pension until 65. The court rules that she, as a woman, is being discriminated against on the basis of sex, by not allowing her to receive her pension five years ealier than she could if she were a man because, "the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex is one of the fundamental human rights." AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO FINDS THIS TO BE IRONIC AND OUTRAGEOUS?How can a court rule that you have to give a woman her pension five years earlier than a man because to not do so would be sex discrimination?I'm not English, but from what I've seen of English law, especially family law, English men must be totally castrated. Where are the lawsuits by men, based on sex discrimination, to challenge this sexist law? Are English men OK with this biased, unfair and sexist law?

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]>