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

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?

"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.

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."

A woman who cannot give birth isn't comparable to a woman who wants to give birth whilst insisting that she is a man.

The key difference is the delusion of being a man. A woman opting out of, or being incapable of, the "most female thing possible" doesn't make her any less a woman. But having the physiology to support a pregnancy, even if it's not firing on all cylinders, makes you definitely not a man.

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?

I don't agree its a logical conclusion that everything should be unisex because logistics & potential harms need to be accounted for. IE sports, prisons etc. But that's not to say competing rights aren't manageable or that workable compromises & exceptions can't be made.

This seems to indicate that it’s so difficult to determine biological sex because of all the variables that we shouldn’t be any sort of division based on male or female. Everything should just be unisex. Is that what you’re saying?

The SC didn't and doesn't need to define what "biological sex" means in law because it is well and widely understood through legal precedents.

What precedents?

"as an aside I don't think the scientific community is nearly as confused about the matter as you think (and wish) them to be."

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vRXXLr0Nf8OvUg0idwnX3zJJeB-Bz9u_2fBYZyJQF6RkXrk9YXqPO6bFxfNLo8SkPO-53c0ufv0HqV1/pub?pli=1

I don't understand how a change of name by deed poll could be used as "evidence of living in an acquired gender". I could change my name to Neil but I'd still be female - just as Lionel Shriver is a woman despite having a name that is most commonly used for men. Names are just names - they don't prove anything and they don't even come with sex markers as passports do. (And that's before you get into the fact that many TM chose names that are not commonly used by either sex - e.g. Phoenix, Avery, Quinn, etc - rather than Graham, Douglas or Barry.)

The SC didn't and doesn't need to define what "biological sex" means in law because it is well and widely understood through legal precedents. What scientists think is in fact irrelevant to the legal process, although as an aside I don't think the scientific community is nearly as confused about the matter as you think (and wish) them to be.

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.

It's a "mind field" for sure, particularly if you're convinced that guessing someone's sex based on their clothes or whether they "are caring" is a more reliable indication of sex than actual sex

I wonder if the gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria - the bits about what toys you like etc - underlies any of the legal intention behind the concept of "living as a gender"? Is there any crossover/reference between the two?

1. The SC never defined what 'biological' meant that the science community immediately repudiated given its complexity.
2. The decision was made concerning the intention of the word at the time the EA was implemented which according to many legal experts may well come into conflict with other laws.
3. The interpretation is far from being accepted as legislation or been tested under law to establish precedence.

There's a reason why other countries aren't silly enough to go down this legal mind field because the law is more complicated that you think.

"I personally prefer to refer to physical reality. All philosophical worldviews worth taking seriously must be compatible with physical reality."

As in the physical reality that men & women have on average group differences in behaviour like the one (violence) which is proposed to be the reason men aren't 'qualified' to use the ladies? Or the physical reality of massive differences in employment, consumerist, special interests & life choices of men & women? Or maybe the one where we usually use surface not biology to differentiate men from women in our social interactions?

"Your second and third paragraphs are sophistry, and do not adequately address the physical reality that we are sexed creatures who depend on a male gamete and a female gamete for every instance of reproduction. "

Non sequitur. It does not follow that the necessity of reproductive differences is necessary to distinguish males from females.

I don't know for sure whether your logic is faulty, or your sophistry is well practised, but it certainly looks like the latter.

No, it's for you. That you don't understand that it's for you is why you you have come to fallacious conclusion you have.

"Interrupteron" = 'anyone that won't agree with me!'

These threads aren't your personal lamppost to piss all over.

Howseitgoin words are dependent on social usage.

Not entirely - fortunately, because otherwise communication would be a very hit-and-miss affair!

Sometimes it is essential to have an agreed definition of words, and the law is one area where definitions can't be left to the vagaries of social usage -
robbery? breaking and entering? burglary? They all sound pretty much the same, they are all about nicking stuff, but they have precise legal definitions.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that a precise definition of 'man' and 'woman' exists, i.e. the established, scientific, biological definition of human sex as binary and immutable.

It referred directly to the Equality Act, but logic would suggest that wherever the words 'man' or 'woman' appear in legislation, they follow the biological definition, rather than social usage based on a recent, irrational, passing fad that made them interchangeable.

Words have meaning. And trans identity ideology assigns meaning to words to suit its own obfuscatory purposes.

As you obscure the natural meaning of 'sex' it has become necessary to clarify that natural meaning by prefixing 'sex' with 'biological' to avoid the nonsense that 'sex' could be a social construct. I personally prefer to refer to physical reality. All philosophical worldviews worth taking seriously must be compatible with physical reality. If I promote a philosophy that claims that all humans are capable of unaided flight, it is reasonable for my opponents to challenge me to demonstrate this. Should I then jump naked out of my first floor window, even though my philosophy is not actually compatible with the physical reality of gravity? This might give someone a cheap thrill but it would not enhance my life.

Your second and third paragraphs are sophistry, and do not adequately address the physical reality that we are sexed creatures who depend on a male gamete and a female gamete for every instance of reproduction. The occasional slight difficulty of working out which sex someone is does not impede the physical reality that each of us is either male or female, and that we cannot change our reproductive role from sperm provider to egg provider or from egg provided to sperm provider. The fact that I am no longer able to function as a sperm provider for reproductive purposes does not make me a non-man, or putatively female.

my honest opinion is it’s all attention seeking nonsense!

This does feel really positive (although maybe not so much for the kids).

As others have said, it really underlines the fact that a GRC is about ‘gender’ and not sex so a GRC can’t be used to affect anything to do with sex. Win! 💪🏼

Thanks GLP 🤣

The Supreme Court clarified that transmen with GRCs still have pregnancy and maternity rights under the Equality Act 2010 same as any other women so it's logical that it works both ways - a woman can try to conceive and still get a GRC as a transman.

If the transman does have a child then she will still be written up as the mother on her baby's birth certificate regardless of her GRC.

Quite. He’s just a bit sad and desperate for attention.