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

Love the way our male visitors get schooled on this site. And yet back they come for more education. Almost embarrassing.

This is important, because it serves to highlight VERY CLEARLY that when people are talking about gender, and how being a man/woman is about gender identity, it very much is NOT about sex.

If you are trying to be a man and trying to be something that only female people can be - pregnant - then it underlines that being a man has nothing to do with being male. It's that undefinable inner feelings again.

This is a good thing. If gender is increasingly separated from sex, then changing your sex characteristics becomes less and less relevant.

The further these two things become divorced from each other, the less gender/sex conflation we have. And things that were once solely about sex - and have got muddled with gender identity - might become more and more about sex again.

It would be discrimination on the basis of the EA protected characteristics of "pregnancy and maternity" and "sex" if pregnant women or women intending to become pregnant were excluded from getting a GRC. The ruling complies with the EA.

Hopefully, cases like this hitting the news will increase the desire to repeal the GRA. It is a literally a piece of paper that lets you be "spinster" instead of "bachelor" or vice-versa in the "Condition" column of your marriage certificate. Surely in 2025, we can write "never married" instead for everyone and then it won't matter any more?

If the GRA is repealed then the Government will need to come up with an alternative way to respect the rights to a family life of trans identifying people (as per Grainger) and we will default back to the judge-made rules extant prior where employers were obliged to let them use the toilets of their "lived gender" once they pass adequately.

The GRA, with its limited provisions for trans identifying people to be recognized as they desire for some, limited, purposes, is actually a valuable bulwark.

What precedents?

Corbett v Corbett [1971] P83

W v W [2000] 3 FCR 748

Upshot: in law biological sex = sex registered at birth on the main register (including any later corrections based on medical evidence, which are rare)

Sex registered on the Gender Recognition Register =/= biological sex.

Female = noun

The way (someone gives birth) = noun

To give birth = verb. An action.

Feminine = adjective. A word that describes a noun.

For example:

1. The woman gave birth
2. The feminine woman gave birth
3. The woman gave birth in a feminine way

What makes the woman in this sentence feminine?

The only possible answer is that the observer who wrote the sentence has decided that whatever she was doing prior to or during the birth was stereotypically female enough that it warranted the adjective being added. If she was simply giving birth - an action that only a woman can do - the word "feminine" would be superfluous.

Perhaps prior to and during the early stages of labour she was wearing a selection of floral dresses, baking cakes and softly smiling at everyone while whispering gently about soft, fluffy kittens... and then when things got going she did a series of beautifully delivered pirouettes in the style of a jewellery box ballerina until the baby was born.

Female = biological condition

Your'e getting warmer. Yep, it's not an action.

Feminine = actions typically associated with females

And the toys are out of the pram.

That's nice dear but a diversion won't change the fact being a CIS female is not an action.

You are confusing yourself by using female to also mean “gender identity” when it simply refers to reproductive pathway.

If you genuinely think that a male human can give birth then there’s not much to be done for you.

Female = biological condition

Your'e getting warmer. Yep, it's not an action.

Feminine = actions typically associated with females

Female = biological condition

Feminine = adjective describing stereotypical behavioural qualities that are assumed to be indicative of what female people do. It can also be applied to people who are not female. It means “in the manner of a female”.

They are not the same word with the same meaning.

Being female is not an action, but rather a biological sex or a gender identity, while actions are things that a person does. The state of "being female" can involve a set of biological, social, and personal characteristics that are distinct from the actions a person takes.

Not feminine, female.

But according to GC logic on this thread it's the action that makes one feminine. The trans man concerned isn't 'behaviourally'/"using their body" as masculine if they have a baby remember?

"I don’t understand how a legal declaration that you’re going to live as a man is remotely compatible with using your body to do the most female thing possible."

"Femininity" is irrelevant. The butchest wrench-wielding lesbian petrolhead is still female, even if she disregards all the standards of femininity.

It is having the biology, even if it is imperfect, that humans have evolved to bear children that makes a woman a woman. Using that biology is the most female act ever only because it's one of two things (the other being breastfeeding) that no man can ever do. Bearing a child is "the most female thing possible" solely because no male can ever do it. Bearing a child isn't a prerequisite to being a woman, rather it is a unique consequence of being a woman that no man can ever experience. And that inability of men to experience childbearing is why intending to do so is logically incompatible with a legal declaration to live as a man, even if the EA prevents judges from rejecting such a declaration from a would-be mother.

The only person on this thread taking about actions making someone "feminine" is you.

We're arguing that biology is what makes someone male or female. Femininity and masculinity are irrelevant to the discussion.

The point here is that male people (men) cannot become pregnant, therefore a pregnant woman cannot possibly be living as a man.

I don't think I can explain this any more clearly or simply.

Yeah? So why you berating me about femininity & child birth when its GC's on this thread that said its relevant to living as a woman?

But according to GC logic on this thread it's the action that makes one feminine. The trans man concerned isn't 'behaviourally'/"using their body" as masculine if they have a baby remember?

"I don’t understand how a legal declaration that you’re going to live as a man is remotely compatible with using your body to do the most female thing possible."