High Court rules that a trans man......

I once built a stud partition wall. Now I'm worried I didn't do it femininely enough. Should I have painted it pink?

I believe this would only count as the activity of a lady if you perform it in a feminine way. Without this feminity, I believe it's difficult for anyone (including you) to know if you're a man or a woman.

This is similar to how the transman with the GRC will (I assume) perform giving birth in a masculine way, with masculinity. This would therefore then make it the activity of a man.

I've only ever done soldering, which means I'm not even on the spectrum😢

I've only ever done a little light stick welding. Because I am a lady.

I learned to weld at one point. Mig, tig and torch. I'm still a woman in the original sex based meaning.

By genderism's neo sexist rules, I'm probably not.

Which is why (broken record time) it makes no sense to try to use the same language to label two totally different things.

TBH I care less about this woman getting a certificate than about the care of the baby. Raising children is a lot of stress, work, and self sacrifice. She is relatively young, and seems to have a lot of issues. I hope sincerely that she has a LOT of support, people who can help out, guide her, and assist. The focus of the next few years may shift somewhat once a baby is born - that often tends to be the way with a newborn.

From the judgment:
In his statement, the Applicant says that he took up Taekwondo for a period in 2016. It struck me as rather a random remark. I note that this sport is equally popular with women and girls, but I sense that in mentioning it, the Applicant regarded it as a facet of what he perceived to be his burgeoning masculinity.

Spot-welding would have been a better choice, as it is not equally popular with women and girls, and would have been better evidence of 'his burgeoning masculinity' .
'Burgeoning masculinity'😆He really has a way with words, doesn't he?

I also liked
If I may inject a note of levity (which nonetheless illustrates a point), the England Women’s National Football Team, with back-to-back successes in the UEFA European Championship, conveniently illustrate that very few activities these days can be intrinsically associated with one sex rather than another. I consider such assumptions can only lead me into the quicksand of stereotyping.

I think his lordship can rest content that he has successfully steered past the Scylla of Football and the Charybdis of Taekwondo, though perhaps not the Quicksand of Stereotyping, nor the Serbonian Bog of Genderwoo😁

They would be ridiculed if they started suggesting dressing in pink or doing a bit of spot-welding.

Next time I do a bit of spot-welding I should dress in pink, if only to watch TRAs fall apart all around.

Good question!

Indeed.

@Merrymouse because the ruling mentions two sets, one private
implying that the other is NHS

Why would we assume that the IVF is paid for by the NHS?

It's almost like our resident community disruptor doesn't want us to look at this...

The only person using the words "femininity" and "feminine" is you. The rest of us said "female". Do you think that maternity wards are decked out in pink ribbons and bouquets of roses? That the staff are in twinsets and pearls and high heels and skirts? You are lying about what people have said again.

Childbirth is not a stereotypical "feminine" behaviour but is a possible consequence of being female. No male can ever do it. The end.

May I just re rail the thread by asking
WHY
are NHS resources being used to

• give the deluded woman a double mastectomy
• give the woman affirmative therapy contrary to CASS
• give the woman IVF
• agree that the woman will be given c-sections if she carries to term

There doesn't appear to be, in that the diagnosis and the commitment to living in the acquired gender are discrete conditions of issuance of the GRC.
The government website suggests change of name and sex marker on identity documents as the only example of how to meet the "living in" criterion. They would be ridiculed if they started suggesting dressing in pink or doing a bit of spot-welding.

Yes actually a lot of the recent self-id movement was a reaction to feeling that the gender dysphoria diagnosis "medicalises" the trangender person or experience. Which I guess I can understand as "diagnostic criteria" suggests there is some sort of treatment required (you'd think that changing your inner gender identity, which is not your sex, would not reuqire any physical treatment anyway? ) but still we would expect some kind of definition if it's a legal requirement to do a thing.

Well said. This whole thing is a massive social and medical experiment being carried out on children and young people at the behest of certain adults with the worst motives in the world.

I'm so over having to tiptoe around while these men (and women) trample over the rights of the young to develop to maturity in safety. These toxic individuals / organisations reframe the normal physical and emotional challenges of puberty and adolescence into something that can be "cured" with these dangerous regimes of drugs and surgery.

As this case highlights - there are no good outcomes for children and young people caught up in this. Until these people are prised away from influencing education, safeguarding and health care for children, all children remain at risk.

Agreed💯

Legally, in the UK, a person’s sex is entirely determined by their chromosomes, gonads and genitalia, where those three things are congruent, which they are in the vast majority of cases. In rare cases where they’re not, a determination will be made by the court after hearing expert evidence on those three things.

This was established in Corbett, and reaffirmed at various times since. I don’t understand why anyone thinks there is any doubt about that.

The outcome of the determination, whether straightforward (in the vast majority of cases) or occasionally difficult, is what is recorded on a birth certificate.

What some biologists, doctors, or anyone else has to say or not say simply isn’t relevant in law.

if at some time a case goes to the Supreme Court which substitutes an new way to determine a persons sex then that will override the Court of Appeal in Corbett. Fairly obviously a great opportunity to do so, if it were ever going to happen, would have been FWS, and that didn’t happen.

“Biological sex” wasn’t clarified in FWS because every judicial mind applied to the question already knows what it means. Which is what I said.

And back on the subject of the thread... (I apologise OP for my contribution to the derail, but I wanted to help head off the DSD and grammar nonsense)...

The weird derailing that is clearly visible here on the thread is an excellent example of why it's so important to have a common understanding of English words. To do anything else is potentially harmful to vulnerable children and adults, if they become confused about what's fact and what's belief.

As other PPs have said the female involved in this case has been significantly let down by so many people to the point where it's now impossible to cut through the quagmire to the basic fact: if you are able to give birth, you are female regardless of any belief that you may hold that you're a man. Having a certificate that validates your belief as somehow real is ridiculously irresponsible at best.

If you are planning to get pregnant and can't be at peace with the fact that you're a female, you've got a significant mental health issue that may lead you to harm yourself (and potentially your future unborn child) permanently. No female can safely take synthetic testosterone in doses that are large enough to create a mimicry of male secondary sex characteristics like lower voices and facial hair growth: there is already enough evidence that shows the life-impacting and life-limiting effects of doing this. We're yet to see what happens at scale to children whose mothers were taking testosterone prior to conception and perhaps in the early stages of fetal development before they realised they were pregnant.

The genitalia will never be "completely female" because someone with 46 XY 5-ARD (correcting my typo above where I said 45) is a male.

Yes, it's possible that it may still resemble female genitalia but, as I understand it from previous DSD discussions, it's far more likely for the penis to visibly grow during puberty. Obviously other things will happen too consistent with male puberty, such as body hair growth (albeit less than other males), a lower voice etc.

In one part of the world which has a notable cohort of boys with the same condition as Semenya, and as other notable males who have previously competed in women's sports, these children are known as the Guevedoces. This translates roughly to "penis at 12".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981

We should stop playing this ridiculous game and simply insist on new lanuage to recognise those personal attributes trans people are currently incorrectly insisting are "women" and "men".

I'd be happy with that. It's what I've tried to glean from various posters over the years, and my conclusions is they're all using these words to mean something different and also the words don't actually have a meaning. It's like when racist people say about POC 'you know the kind of people I'm talking about'. They can't outright name any aspect of the way they classify things because it would look astoundingly sexist.

And dumb-clever idiots who think pretending they don't understand what words like "woman" or "biological sex" could ever even mean becasue it's all too complicated can get on with explaining why they shouldn't get a traffic violation for jumping a red light because traffic lights are actually impossible because colour is a spectrum.

Exactly. They are very close to 'freemen of the land' in my view.

The interpretation is far from being accepted as legislation or been tested under law to establish precedence.

It's such a job to know who to believe, Michael Foran, the Supreme Court, an anonymous poster on the internet...