Why are trans things discussed in Feminism section not a separate topic or have I missed something?

We do not share Snappity's beliefs so they will just keep hectoring us until we submit or they drive us away.
I do not think they care much which they achieve.

Snappity is very focused on the biological ideals. Those ideals are apparently, in Snappity world, ideals that make Caitlyn Jenner a woman.

I suspect Snappity lives in a world where Snappity thinks the entire 8 billion humans would or should consider Jenner to be just that.

I think 7.9999999999999999999 billion are unconvinced Snappity.

Excellent explanation, AllyMcBeagle and sod the errant "it's"!

Sorry I meant "its effect." not "it's effect." Apologies if there are any other typos.

Stupid errant apostrophe undermining my credibility

The excerpt from the GRA that Snappity posted is legit and they are correct on the interpretation point, although it's a fairly nuanced point and it's particularly important to bear in mind that history cannot be rewritten and the GRA only changes the interpretation of the documents going forward from the date that the GRC is issued.

This point is just plain silly though:

Sex becomes that shown on the new birth certificate "for all purposes".

There are no exemptions to that. Sex is absolute.

After saying that upon a GRC being issued the legal sex changes, the Act goes on immediately to say that this "does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued" and that this "is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation." I think any reasonable person would regard those as big exceptions. The explanatory notes included with the Act even refer to exceptions!!
"9. Subsection (3) means that the general proposition is subject to exceptions made by the remainder of the Act and, for the future, by any other enactment or subordinate legislation."

I think Snappity is getting too focussed on the wording tbh. Yes, the Act might say that a person's sex changes but it is, after all, a piece of legislation rather than magic and therefore in the real world it just means that people with a GRC should be treated as their new gender/sex. In the same way, companies have corporate personalities under the law but I hope even Snappity wouldn't believe that eg their bank is really a person.

So if you take s19 of the GRA for example which says that a GRC "does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour," that means that the person with a GRC is effectively still treated as their birth sex for the purposes of the succession rules, and it is therefore an exception to the general position that people with GRCs are treated as their new gender/sex. It is an exception regardless of how it is phrased. It doesn't have to literally say that the person with a GRC is still their original sex for succession purposes, that is it's effect.

I'm just going to reiterate that the legal position is just the legal position. It does not change material reality. Parliament could pass a law saying that grass is now a rather fetching shade of fuchsia if they wanted to, but the grass would still be green.

Always check it out yourself. They have been known to edit.
In fact some transgender organization supplied councils with lists of protected characteristics from the EA that somehow managed to either erase sex as a protected characteristic or replace it with gender which is not a protected characteristic.
I was amazed at how different the EA was from what the TRA said it was. So were the councils when they were informed they had been duped.

Yes bottom of p5, Snappity (allegedly?) quotes section 9 of the GRA.

I have def seen that phrase before about becoming the new sex, but I had thought it was that recent thing in Scottish law where they sort of snuck it in?

It wasn’t a link, it was a copied bit on bottom of p5 I think Datun

I can't immediate see the actual link that Snappity has posted. Have I missed it?

We used to have a poster here called Gibberty. They posted the same sort of thing - they were banned!

Thanks all. I will be looking up the Act later on!

Would suggest at all information posted on these boards is taken as just things posted on a forum and if you are unsure about any of the facts then you can always spend the time and look things up. This stands for all posters and is good advise.

I don't know but they have admitted to being a TRA so I can't be struck for saying so.

Do your own research, don't rely on that poster they are a TRA so post from that perspective.

Thank you spontaneous 😘 though I have a horrible feeling that Section 9 bit and the legal fiction is true... nonetheless, salt cellar at the ready...

I honestly advise all posters to take any 'evidence' given by Snappity with a very large dose of salt. They are not always truthful and the links they post are often from dubious or non authentic authors/sites.

Also, that word ‘interpret’ - we ‘interpret’ as saying female. Who is interpreting? Who is giving permission? What if you disagreed? I don’t understand how this works in practice - I can see how you might write to your old school, say, and explain the situation and get new exam certs - but they are diff docs, it is not a question of being read differently.

Thank you Snappity - it is fascinating and bizarre, and I honestly don’t know how it was ever passed!

“The person’s sex becomes that of a woman” is such a huge problem, and should not have been allowed as a phrase. It dissects legal sex and biological sex and makes the two unrelated.

Upon the granting of a GRC, does a transwoman suddenly sprout and a womb; do chromosomes change? No, of course not.

The GRA needs repealing for exactly this kind of reason. ‘Legal fiction’ is now throwing up all kinds of problems. A biologist and a lawyer may have two entirely different definitions of the same word.

AAAAGGGHHHH

But thanks for the link.

"Snappity how is male ‘read’ as female? I don’t understand what that means."

I am not surprised. It is a very odd thing going on. Let me quote s9 of the Gender Recognition Act

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).
(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.

So sub-section 2 says that nothing which happened is changed but if there is a document hanging around with the old sex in it (exam certificate, birth certificate etc) then if it used say male we now interpret as saying female. If you like, it does not change history but it changes how history books record history.

Yes they do seem complicated - so what do you mean by male is ‘read’ as female? I genuinely cannot understand!

"Birth certificates are reissued. The original stays within the registry but is locked. A new certificate is issued. That one is open. Some agencies have the right to view the original."

No the original remains and is not locked. All that is locked is the link between the old and new. Well, usually. Both can be locked in cases of adoption, for instance.

I am honestly not surprised almost nobody understands it. Birth certificates are surprisingly complicated and the Gender Recognition Act added a layer of abstraction which can only be described as unhelpful.

"It's provided for in the EA that there are occasions when even GRC holders can be excluded from women's spaces, and it specifically suggests rape counselling can be biologically female only. Why do you think that might be?"

I think the honest answer is that nobody knows until a test case is brought. My best guess is that if someone with a male body and a male birth certificate they would lose and that if someone with a female birth certificate, hormones and surgery brought a case she would win. Between those two poles I don't think anyone knows.

Snappity how is male ‘read’ as female? I don’t understand what that means.