France seems to have spotted some legal issues with mucking around with gender law

As lass has described me as a gloater I withdraw any contribution this conversation.

My last post wasn't intended to include you OP after you realised the case is not a transgender issue.

Are you aware that French law permits transitioning without medical procedure upon application to a court?

The requirements under the law to obtain a change of gender marker on the document are that an adult or emancipated minor[1] needs to demonstrate an adequate combination of facts that prove that the reference to their gender in civil status does not match the one in which they are known. This can include publicly stating their gender identity; that one is known as having that gender identity amongst family, friends; and that one has already changed their name to match the requested gender

So lauding this decision, which affects one person, as some sort landmark decision against transitioning is ill- judged and looks very much like gloating.

Yes, those were his arguments, but the question is whether the lower court actually created a sex category for intersex people, or whether they simply agreed that he (and following that anyone) had the right to designate himself 'gender neutral'.

The whole case isn't really the bastion against transgender ideology some posters have been claiming for it.

I was glad to see that the judges in this case recognised the profound implications for the whole of society - not just the individual in question - for changing the way the law conceptualises sex. That understanding has been singularly lacking in many other countries, where the judiciary and the legislature have taken an approach that only be described as short-sighted and reckless. However, I agree that the issues here are complex and there is no call for a triumphalist tone - as the OP I think acknowledged when she realised the case involved an intersex person.

We certainly can't tell what the exactly the court action said from a precis of a translated court article.

However the second article sets out the person's motives which refer to physical characteristics.

According to his doctor the plaintiff, 64, was born with a "rudimentary vagina" and a "micropenis" but no testicles.

He approached the courts as he did not want such an "unequivocal" designation as male or female.

Speaking to the newspaper 20Minutes back in October the 64-year-old,who is married with an adopted child and lives in eastern France said: "As a teenager I understood that I was not a boy. I didn't have a beard, my muscles didn't build."

After doctors administered testosterone he said "My appearance became more masculine. It was a shock, I no longer recognized myself. It made me realize I was neither a man nor a woman."

The whole case isn't really the bastion against transgender ideology some posters have been claiming for it.

Correction: I strongly suspect it was the latter, i.e. based on self-declaration.

So the French courts in fact seem to be denying this person legal recognition of the physical condition of being intersex but would happily allow id based on gender.

You are right that this is a strange and unfair situation, although I don't think it's at all clear that the initial ruling to create a 'gender neutral' sex category was in fact based on the person's physical condition. It would mean the court would have had to specify that only intersex persons could use that category, and we don't know whether it did.

This judgment is not a good outcome for this person, or any intersex person who feels similarly, but that doesn't mean the lower court's ruling would have made good law either.

Correction: I strong suspect it was the latter, i.e., based on self-declaration.

The OP's article it says that the person was asking to be legally designated 'gender neutral'. It isn't splitting hairs to say that this isn't the same thing as being recognised as intersex. 'Gender neutral' is a category with no basis in fact, as no one is gender (or rather sex) neutral. It's possible that the wording used in the case has been altered in translation, but going by what was reported in the OP's article, the judges weren't denying him legal recognition of the physical category of intersex, but declining to create a category of 'gender neutral'. I wonder if he would have had more success asking to be recognised as 'intersex' (material reality) rather than 'gender neutral' (metaphysical claim). Maybe not, as the judges seemed concerned about the far-reaching implications of creating another sex category.

It's impossible to parse the arguments that were made in this case unless one can read the full judgement in French. I can't help wondering if 'gender identity' ideology might even have derailed his claim, if his lawyer had decided to use the line of argument that has been used successfully to recognise self-declared 'non-binary people' in other jurisdictions - namely, that individuals have the right to determine whether they are male, female or 'neither' - rather than an argument based on the facts of his client's medical condition.

The article you linked to mentioned that this judgment overturned a previous one that had allowed for the person to be designated as 'gender neutral'. I would be very interested to know how that court defined criteria for inclusion in the category 'gender neutral': was it available only to people who are intersex? Or could anyone opt in on their say so? That makes all the difference to how this category would operate in law and policy. I strongly suspect it was the former, partly because that is how other courts have defined (or rather non-defined) it, but also because the term 'gender neutral' itself implies a metaphysical claim rather than referring to the reality of sexed bodies. The distinction between these things isn't splitting hairs; quite the opposite.

The OP was perfectly justified in describing what is happening to the legal category of sex in many jurisdictions as 'mucking about', for that is indeed what lawmakers are doing

That is not what this case is about. And it is splitting hairs to say this person should rightly be denied the option of a neutral sex but should be permitted the option of intersex when the decision denied him the latter right.

From this article it would seem this person has the option of a

"This fair balance would allow either for personal records which mention no sexual category, or the modification of the gender which has been assigned to them when it is not in line with their physical appearance and social behaviour."

In other words there is the option of leaving a blank or picking a gender different from the one assigned (presumably that means sex on birth certificate) because their appearance and socialisation does not accord with what is on their birth certificate.

www.thelocal.fr/20160323/french-person-with-penis-and-vagina-denied-third-gender

So the French courts in fact seem to be denying this person legal recognition of the physical condition of being intersex but would happily allow id based on gender.

No one has a neutral sex and I am very pleased the French judges were sufficiently in touch with reality to recognise this.

Humans are a sexed species; everyone is sexed, including intersex people. People born with disorders of sexual development are not a third sex (they don't make a third type of gamete) nor are they a sort of blank non-sexed person ('gender neutral').

As others have pointed out, the push to create a fictional legal category of a 'gender neutral' or non-sexed person is largely coming from trans activists, and lots of judges and politicians are going along with this without carefully considering the repercussions, as the French judges did in this case.

The OP was perfectly justified in describing what is happening to the legal category of sex in many jurisdictions as 'mucking about', for that is indeed what lawmakers are doing. They are acting as if it is NBD to sever legal sex from all objective reality, which begs the question - why do we have it as a category to begin with? If sex is purely a matter for the individual to decide, and members of each sex category have no shared objective characteristics, why have it as a category in law at all?

Thus I was pleased to read the judges' reasoning that:

The distinction between male and female was “necessary to the social and legal organization, of which it is a cornerstone"

And that: any judicial recognition of a sex outside male/female categories would have “profound repercussions on rules of French law,” and would entail “numerous legislative changes.”

Well, of course it would. That much should be obvious to anyone who works in law or policy. But somehow, lawmakers around the world have failed to grasp this as they blithely create 'non-binary' categories for anyone to opt into on passports and driver's licences.

Having said all that, I agree with ItalianGreyhound that there is a case for creating the legal sex designation 'intersex'. Not 'gender neutral', which is something nobody is. AFAIK, most intersex people are happy to be recognised as male or female, but obviously some, like the man in this case, would prefer to have legal recognition of the specific nature of their sexed bodies (intersex literally means 'between two sexes'). Of course this category should only be open to people with recognised intersex conditions, not people who claim their personalities and/or feelings make them something other than the sex they are.

In fairness to the OP, she didn't realise this was about intersex.

There have been several reports lately of people being able to put an X on their birth certificate, passport? (Can't remember). To denote non-binary/gender neutral.

And there is a massive push by trans pressure groups to include non-binary under transgender, legally.

Which would mean being able to switch 'gender'. Which means what, exactly?

Which, in terms of the trans ideology, I can't see this benefiting anyone other than cross dressers.

And is the word intersex now falling out of favour?

Are they wanting it to be 'gender neutral'? Because whilst I can understand them wanting to choose a word that best reflects their situation, it's a word that benefits the trans ideology, too. Is this another conflation/appropriation going on?

I think the only thing that the OP is guilty of is posting in haste.

This is an intersex person so I do think there is legal room for intersex.
That's good of you! Its a bit scarey that you even think there's a possibility of there not being legal acceptance of a he right to existence of a person with a congenital condition

What upsets me though, in these times, is the conflation of sex and gender, again.

Yes let's reclaim this distinction

You are conflating the 2 in your title. This case has nothing to do with transgender or gender issues although I see you acknowledge you posted in haste.

There is a thread called "unpeak trans moment"- your haste in posting this article (about one deeply unhappy person with a rare medical condition) with the gloating title "mucking about" is one for me.

But "neutral gender" would also mean non binary. The vast majority of intersex people are raised as male or female. I agree there is a case for the tiny proportion that are ambiguous to have a neutral sex marker.

This is an intersex person so I do think there is legal room for intersex. Because it is a true biology for this person.

I posted this a while back and it got dismissed here as irrelevant. I actually think this is hugely important. Sanity has prevailed in France.

www.bioethicsobservatory.org/2018/02/kids-could-be-permanently-harmed-by-gender-law-warn-bioethics-centre-and-catholics-bishops/24477

People are speaking out.