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

Infertile women are this poster's gotcha on nearly every thread

It's despicable

I think you must have intended this as a reply to someone else. I merely pointed out that you didn't understand logic, using your error as an example.

Oh god, here comes the cut and paste logic thing which I've seen from this poster several times before. No relevance to what's been said, of course. Time for bed.

Yes, words have meanings, or did until the gender ideologues started changing them arbitrarily and causing confusion. It's no good trying this nonsense about sex being a spectrum and nobody knowing what sex they are if they haven't had their chromosomes tested. Nobody here is going to fall for that.

Not a single human being has ever been born from the body of a man, nor ever will be. Women and girls are treated differently - usually worse - because of our reproductive capacity, whether we use it or not.

"The argument presented involves several logical fallacies and poor reasoning. Here are the key issues:

1. No True Scotsman Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when someone's qualifications for membership in a group are arbitrarily changed to exclude counterexamples. Initially, the definition provided for a woman is "a person born with XX chromosomes who is of the nature to give birth." When challenged with the example of infertile women, the speaker shifts the criteria subtly by saying that infertility is an exception that "proves the rule." This adjustment conveniently excludes infertile women from undermining the definition, making the argument non-falsifiable and inconsistent.

1. Begging the Question: The argument assumes its conclusion in its premises. The definition provided presupposes the very criteria (chromosomes and ability to give birth) being debated about who qualifies as a woman, especially in discussions about transgender identities. By doing so, the argument circularly defines "woman" without addressing the broader societal and biological complexities, thus failing to engage with the central issue.

1. Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This fallacy involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. The definition of a woman as someone who is "of the nature to give birth" ignores the wide range of biological, medical, and social realities that can affect this ability and does not account for those who do not fit neatly into these categories.

1. Appeal to Nature Fallacy: This argument claims that a woman is "of the nature to give birth" and that implies some natural state or essence of being a woman. This is problematic because it suggests that what is "natural" is inherently correct or better, which does not account for the diversity of human experiences and conditions."

These fallacies combined show a lack of nuanced understanding of gender and biological science, and they undermine the validity of the argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/Q8RgGurD/whatfallacyisthistransphobemaking.html

Oh dear. You really don't understand logic do you?

The statement "only women can give birth to children" is not equivalent to the statement "only people who have given birth to children are women".

Words have meaning.

'Sex' in essence is about distinguishing characteristics between men & women as a group that includes but is not limited by biological sex given in our social lives we distinguish males from females without ever knowing for sure their gametes/chromosomes/secondary sex characteristics. IE we use typical cues that are associated to CIS people like surface presentation.

In terms of biological sex, 'biological' is a vague concept that isn't defined in law & can have various interpretations that not all women might neatly fit into. That you assume your interpretation is the only legitimate one is at best an opinion given words are dependent on social usage.

Don’t try and do logic - you’re not very good at it.

OK, I'll try and spell this out for the hard of thinking.

Most things that humans do can be done by humans of either sex. There are a few things that can only be done by female humans, and a few things which can only be done by male humans. These are things which involve the reproductive system, which is different in males and females.

One thing that can only be done by female humans is becoming pregnant and giving birth. It's absurd for a female human to claim to be be living as a man if she is pregnant, because men (male humans) cannot become pregnant.

I feel for her intended kids. What’s the betting they don’t get to call anyone ‘mum’?

Don't be ridiculous. Biological sex is about reproductive roles. Many humans won't reproduce, because of medical or other circumstances, or by choice. They will still have the body, organs, systems etc of their sex. W has a female body and wants to use it to become pregnant. This is totally at odds with also wanting to be male.

The point I was making, and so were many others, is what does it mean when someone says 'I intend to live as a man/woman for the rest of my life'? The phrase is meaningless. The only thing I have in common with all four billion other women and girls on the planet is being female. The same goes for the four billion men and boys. Nobody can change sex, so nobody is swapping into an opposite sex body. So what can it mean other than 'I intend to swap stereotypes'?

what is intended by the phrase living “in the acquired gender”? . The starting point in statutory interpretation is always to give the words of the statute their ordinary and natural meaning. In this case, however, I find this principle has limited, if any, scope. p27

Please let's go back to giving words their ordinary and natural meaning!

The judge is suggesting that if he gave the words male, female, woman, man, gender, sex their 'ordinary and natural meaning' in this case, the ruling might be different.
He says that the ordinary and natural meanings of these words are ' limiting', implying that in order to arrive at his ruling, he had to shake off the shackles of ordinary and natural meanings of words like male, female, woman, man, and use extra-ordinary and un-natural meanings instead.

And yet -
It is not the role of this Court to adjudicate on the meaning of gender or sex, or to seek to redefine the word man, or for that matter, woman. p23.

The more I read it, the more puzzling the judgment appear.

Um, I'm not the one saying it nor do I agree with it. It's most of the responses on this thread that are.

And yes it is shameful & contemptible.

The absolute barefaced cheek to respond in such a way to that poster.

You should be so ashamed of yourself. You are contemptible.

I know that it isn't quite Panto Season but:

Oh no it doesn't.

The judge was put in an impossible position as the GRA tribunal contradicted itself and did not attend the hearing
but
the detailed wording shows the truth

and it is desperately sad for that woman
and any child she manages to have

According to the above fellow GC infertility isn't doing female 'things':

"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."

Oh fuck off with that bollocks. I'm infertile because my female biology doesn't work not because I'm a man you absolute clown

dont you dare weaponise female infertility to support your delusion that men can become women

By this logic women who can't or won't have children are 'men'.

It works both ways…

Looking on the bright side, this is one more step towards repeal of the GRA.

I agree the GRA should be repealed. No law should be passed to allow people to falsify official documents, nor to require people to pretend they believe a lie.

Indeed. Now that the Supreme Court has clarified that sex is immutable and biological, it makes zero sense that anyone can change their birth certificate to validate their belief. We may as well be letting people change their birth year too if they feel much younger or older than their "biological age".