“Person who gave birth” turns out to be mother.

The terms mother and father would be completely meaningless, in as much as being severed from biology. Which is what they want.

Exactly. Every AGP male in the land would be getting their children's birth certificates changed to show that they are the mother of their children.

Freddy losing in the courts is part of the plan because it then shows the need for wholescale law reform. Had he won, few would have cared. Then you will wish that they had made a small exception for a small number of people rather than abolishing record-keeping of biological sex and therefore discrimination and violence against one of the sexes.

It's probably me, but I don't quite understand this.

If Freddie had won, it wouldn't be a small number of people. It would have been every transactivist parent in the land. Surely.

The terms mother and father would be completely meaningless, in as much as being severed from biology. Which is what they want. So I don't understand why not getting that, is a win.

It's also abundantly clear that there isn't a person in the land who agrees with the neutralising of biological roles.

And whereas I can see a possibility of reform to the birth certificate to reflect the issues resulting from IUI, parental responsibility for non-biological parents etc, it's an addition, not a substitution.

Why does this court case mean they are going to abandon biological recordkeeping?

I would say that sex on the birth certificate is a matter of record. It’s not a legal status to be a woman or a man. If it was then the law would technically be able to be changed to make it mean different things. The only legal status is in terms of a trans person having a GRC. There, them being a man or woman comes from law, not biology.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here Pota. A birth certificate is a matter of record, which records a biological fact as well as being a legal record of the birth and the sex of the child.

The sex on a birth certificate can be changed if someone has a GRC, so the GRC is a legal record which is related to the birth certificate.

It’s not a legal status to be a woman or a man.
them being a man or woman comes from law

This looks like two contradictory statements. Either being a man or a woman is or isn't a legal status. It can't be a legal status sometimes and not others.

Sex has a legal status. You can sue for sex discrimination on the basis of being female (your sex). This requires female (sex) to have a legal meaning.

www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_-redacted-_Semenya_ASA_IAAF.pdf

Semenya needs to shoulder responsibility too, but that’s a whole other thread of which there are many.

Is it NotBadConsidering? I have not read the report and didn't want to state something as fact when I was not sure of it.

I've mostly tried to avoid delving too deeply as I'm very uncomfortable with the way Semenya has been treated by the South African sports authorities.

It’s not hearsay and rumour. It’s clearly stated in the full 163 page Cas report.

But with CS, haven’t people said that her biological sex is in fact male due to the Y chromosome? Or is it genuinely not capable of being determined either way?

Caster Semenya is male, that much is known due to falling foul of a rule that only applies to males.

The specifics of CS's condition gets us into the realm of internet rumour and hearsay which I'm not crazy about, but it seems most likely to be a case of 5 alpha reductase deficiency, which is a condition that can cause ambiguous genitalia at birth, hence Caster being brought up as a girl.

Yes, these things can be tested for, but Caster was not born into a wealthy western society so may well have not had any testing as a child.

46XXY, 46XYY, 46X0 etc are NOT intersex conditions. They are chromosomal aneuploidies.

Caster Semenya is male, with 46XY and an enzyme deficiency, 5 alpha reductase deficiency. The only difference between Semenya and any other male without this condition is the enzyme deficiency led to a failure to fully form external genitalia.

Surely we’d rather than transmen give birth themselves than use surrogates? Well, I would anyway.

Yes, they are men with an intersex condition, but I wanted to clarify that DSDs are not always about chromosomes, nor do all, or even most, DSDs result in any ambiguity as to a person's sex. Most have their sex accurately observed at birth like the rest of us.

I loathe the othering of people with what can at the extreme end be complex and distressing medical conditions by trans privilege activists.

I have always said that people can be who they want socially and known as whatever they want to be but unless there's gender reassignment surgery done, legally you should be known as whatever genitals you have.

I don't think it's right at all that someone can look, dress and act like a female for example, insist that they get to use female toilets and changing rooms and apply for jobs saying they are female but they still have a penis. It's not right, it's actually dangerous and it'll come to a point where people don't even know who someone is.

If Freddy truly wanted to be a man, he would be one. He would have reassignment surgery and not have given birth. Only females can give birth and if you truly felt like a man and felt 'born in the wrong body' it would be hideous to you to do something so female like giving birth.

I think the world is actually going mad! Freddy could have easily had some eggs kept, got donor sperm and used a surrogate and be named as a second parent on the BC to a child who is biologically his or legally adopted the child with another partner. What some trans people want is nature and the law totally overtuned which can't happen. Some want to change genders and magically be able to reproduce as the new gender which is physically impossible!

Isn't this Freddy the same one that was all over the papers for being sat in a pool of period blood and saying how unfair it was to still be menstruating as a man? Like what the actual hell? Have reassignment surgery and that would stop then! What do these people want? Magic fairies to stop their body doing what is should without any intervention? If Freddy hated periods so much, why use that to then have a baby?

I feel Freddy is mentally ill and very attention seeking and I worry about that child

Oh sorry, okay I get what you’re saying now. But with CS, haven’t people said that her biological sex is in fact male due to the Y chromosome? Or is it genuinely not capable of being determined either way?

I take my information from intersex advocates like MRKHtake2 (Claire) who often say that intersex does NOT mean a person does not have a biological sex.

But Arnold for Jacob’s syndrome, they are still men, but with an intersex condition.

Basically wanted to get away from the way that TRAs hikack intersex and say it’s proof that some people are ‘in between’ and are neither male nor female.

That's 46 XY, damn it.

Errol intersex people do have a biological sex but have chromosomal abnormalities

No. The, misleading in my view, term intersex covers a wide range of chromosomal and developmental disorders related to sex chromosomes and the reproductive systems of men and women.

Caster Semenya, for example, is chromosomally normal, the rule Caster fell foul of only applies to 48 XY DSDs, that is developmental disorders in chromosomally normal males.

Developmental disorders can be enzyme problems, or receptor problems for example and some chromosomal disorders, such as Jacob's Syndrome in men, can have such mild symptoms that people go through life blissfully unaware they even have them.

OldCrone well it would be easier to get a GRC with self-ID. But I would argue no more ‘inaccurate’ than getting one because a doctor signed it off. Both are instances of man or woman being determined by law and not biology, albeit that one route is easier than the other.

But for anyone non-trans, I am not interested in a legal status of woman. The law’s job is to protect me from discrimination I would face as a woman. Not to determine whether I am one. That is just a fact about my existence, same as we don’t need a legal definition of human to know that we are one.

I would say that sex on the birth certificate is a matter of record. It’s not a legal status to be a woman or a man. If it was then the law would technically be able to be changed to make it mean different things. The only legal status is in terms of a trans person having a GRC. There, them being a man or woman comes from law, not biology.

I would be female even without a birth certificate and some countries don’t even have birth certificates- just numbers.

I also said before that the bit that didn’t matter was what it said on the GRC and i thought you were pulling me up on that.

But what it says on the GRC does matter, because birth certificates can be changed on the basis of a GRC. At present, there are some requirements that need to be fulfilled to do this (but obviously not enough if a woman can declare she is going to live as a man and then immediately get pregnant). Reform of the GRA along self-ID lines would mean that legal sex becomes a matter of choice. That is what the problem is.

Errol intersex people do have a biological sex but have chromosomal abnormalities. There is no ‘legal sex’ that differs from biological sex for which intersex people can apply. The only legal sex in the true sense there is is the GRC which purports to assign a sex to someone regardless of their biology.

what is legal sex?

The sex that is shown on your birth certificate. Which can be changed to the opposite sex if you have a GRC. I used that term to make the distinction with biological (actual) sex, which of course is the same as legal sex for most people, but not for those with a GRC.

A transwoman (born male, with a GRC) has a biological sex of male, but a legal sex of female.

But I am uncomfortable that law in any way determines sex. Law can be changed at a whim.

Agreed. Which is why I think the GRA should be repealed. Its only real function in the first place was to avoid passing a law to allow same sex marriage. Now that we have same sex marriage the GRA should go.

And I will remind you of this when Sally Hines and gang try to force through a law saying there should be no reference to anyone’s sex on the birth certificate- child or parent. Which is what they want. I have heard them say it explicitly at talks and conferences and they have been given millions in funding for it to happen. Freddy losing in the courts is part of the plan because it then shows the need for wholescale law reform. Had he won, few would have cared. Then you will wish that they had made a small exception for a small number of people rather than abolishing record-keeping of biological sex and therefore discrimination and violence against one of the sexes.

'Legal sex' should be determined by biology, it's probably a necessary concept for intersex people but it really should be completely separate from 'gender'.

Sorry Old I think I misunderstood slightly but I also said before that the bit that didn’t matter was what it said on the GRC and i thought you were pulling me up on that.

If we have given Freddy a certificate saying man then why not also something just saying parent? Certificates don’t confer biological status. Also I am talking about an exception for trans people, not a rule for everyone.

OldCrone what is legal sex? It sounds like ‘assigned at birth’ type speak. I am female due to my biology. The law could be changed tomorrow to say that I am a man and it wouldn’t make it true.

Obviously to trans people having some sort of certificate acts as validation. I have no real objection to that and I have no objection to an exception being made so that these people are simply registered as gestational parent.

But I am uncomfortable that law in any way determines sex. Law can be changed at a whim.

Pota2 You implied that what sex was on Freddy's birth certificate was unimportant. If you realise all the implications I mentioned it's odd that you'd say that. Legal sex matters.