A Belfast court judgment has been hailed by as a “landmark” moment in UK transgender rights by influential campaign group Stonewall.

FFS You're welcome

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? Or should it be evidence-based?

I mean this wins FWR today. The whole reason we're in this massive mess is because we're repeatedly being asked to validate the feelings of people who say they are actually the opposite sex. There is literally zero evidence to support claims that male born people were in fact meant to be female born people, it's just that something got mixed up in the teleportation machine.

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? Or should it be evidence-based?

I thought you were arguing FOR this policy, not AGAINST? Isn't the whole trans issues built on feelings alone? Are you actually saying that it's perfectly fine to have a policy based on the feelings of men but not the feelings of women? Cos it sure sound like it.

Oops

Robin is here to tell us words mean things and also that words don't mean things, and that should be celebrated.

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? Or should it be evidence-based?

Apparently the GRA certificate should be changed to a feeling of "incongruence" yeahbutnaw. How do you feel about that feeling being a policy?

Incongruence is a humanistic psychology concept developed by Carl Rogers which suggests that unpleasant feelings can result from a discrepancy between our perceived and ideal self. The perceived self is how an individual views themselves and the ideal self is how an individual wishes they were.

The quote from the judgement again (this time properly in italics):

"I am not persuaded that she is in an analogous position to her comparator, namely a non-transgender (or cisgender) woman; and, in any event, would consider the difference in treatment between the two to be objectively justified – whether one applies the manifestly without reasonable foundation or the fair balance level of scrutiny – on the basis of the aims identified in AP, Garçon and Nicot and of the analysis above in relation to the applicant’s Article 8 claim."

The most important thing to remember is this:

This judgement agrees with the ECtHR judgment in AP, Garçon and Nicot v France
(2017) (App Nos 79885/12, 52471/13 and 52596/13), that a medical diagnosis is a reasonable requirement for a state to impose before granting a legal change of sex because it can legitimately balance other interests against that of transgender individuals.

The court has therefore rejected self-id as an option.

In accordance with shifting terminology in the medical profession however, the court did find that while evidence of a diagnosis can remain a requirement for a GRC, the condition diagnosed should no longer be referred to as a disorder.

There are various ways of achieving this and it depends on what the court finds is the remedy for the current terminology. It may not change much at all, it may change a lot. There is a large amount of overlap between the diagnosis preferred by the applicant (gender incongruence) and the diagnosis that is currently required (gender dysphoria). The main difference is the absence of serious distress which is present in the latter and absent in the former. In practice though, both diagnoses may be seen as as good as the same.

Please also not what the court states in [151] (p.51f.) in rejecting the applicant's claim that being treated differently from a woman in having to prove gender dysphoria before being recognised as a woman by the state is unlawful discrimination (a violation of Article 14 rights under the European Human Rights Convention).

^"I am not persuaded that she is in an
analogous position to her comparator, namely a non-transgender (or cisgender)
woman; and, in any event, would consider the difference in treatment between the
two to be objectively justified – whether one applies the manifestly without
reasonable foundation or the fair balance level of scrutiny – on the basis of the aims
identified in AP, Garçon and Nicot and of the analysis above in relation to the
applicant’s Article 8 claim."^

Or, to put it in other words, the court rejects the TWAW claim for someone without a GRC. (It does not say anything about TWAW after a GRC is granted as that was not the issue to be decided.)

Interesting once the stats came out yeahbut vanished.... how strange. 🤔* *

Could you explain a really fundamental point to me? Why do you think that biological women should have to produce evidence to defend their existing right to single-sex facilities?

Robin! I'm amazed you can find the time to join us here. Thanks for squeezing us into your busy schedule of harassing plaintiffs.

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? Or should it be evidence-based?

I thought you were arguing FOR this policy, not AGAINST? Isn't the whole trans issues built on feelings alone? Are you actually saying that it's perfectly fine to have a policy based on the feelings of men but not the feelings of women? Cos it sure sound like it.

This is being argued on the terms of people who have no consideration or empathy for women and girls. They aren't going to start doing so. "If you're not going to be raped, why would you have an issue" is their mentality. And even if a few women are, it's a price that has to be paid to make a few males feel valid. Because to them, women don't matter.

No. Women and girls have boundaries. We have a right to those boundaries. The bar has to be set higher for women than a statistical unlikeliness of rape or sexual assault. Women's privacy, dignity, feelings, concerns, comfort, freedom from sexual harassment all matter too.

It's wrong to teach our girls that they don't have a right to express discomfort. That their consent doesn't matter.

Women say no. All polling where the questions have been asked honestly shows that women don't want males in female spaces unless they have full sex reassignment surgery. So the answer is that we won't gain anything from reasoning with unreasonable people. We will keep doing what we are doing, raising awareness, and making our voices heard.

Are you sure you wanted to say that out loud yeahbutnaw ?

That's a DARVO. Deliberately.

I think a lot of people, more than I ever thought when I was younger, are completely lacking in imagination, or the ability to look into the future and anticipate consequences, especially unintended ones, or in situations different from their own.

It also makes them vulnerable to people who have ulterior motives.

Well we know that's what men do, that's why they shouldn't be given a free pass to access previously unavailable female spaces.

The GRA should be repealed and the GRC scrapped, along with self ID policies. Problem solved....except that men of all identities will continue to harass, assault ,rape and kill women

The narrow effect is that now, clearly, a diagnosis of ‘gender incongruence’ will be as effective as a diagnosis of ‘gender dysporia’ in founding an application for a GRC. I believe the Gender Recognition Panel should issue a practice direction, and the GRA should be amended by secondary legislation at an early opportunity.

Really?

It is just a different word though isn't it. Non of this means men are actually women. It makes zero difference to that. You can play around with words until the female cattle come home and it has no effect on that.

Moving on from that nice demonstration of a razor-sharp legal mind at work, what are the implications of this ruling and do we need to take action?

This thread is about the judgement in NI. Why are these pointless digressions being humoured?