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

FFS.

WHY is it so important to own the specific word "woman", or in this case "man", if you want it to mean something that has no connection whatsoever to the previous meanings of those words?

Why the fuck are we allowing a small group of people with very disordered and frankly sexist beliefs about what it means to be a man or a woman determine what those words can mean for humanity as a whole?

That makes sense - but if a GRC can be granted to somebody who then goes on to give birth or father a child, it does rather undermine the idea that the goal of a GRC is to protect Article 8 rights to privacy and hide trans status and sex.

Idk…the recent Supreme Court ruling clarified that ‘gender’ isn’t the same thing as sex, and that ‘single sex’ means the latter
so what in practice does a ‘gender recognition certificate’ mean? A bit more of a right to insist on other people using your ‘preferred pronouns’ than someone without one?

I agree the GRA should be repealed.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.

The whole thing is a lie, so I shouldn't be surprised when those involved add more lies, but stating that you intend to live as a man while actively planning to get pregnant shows an absolute lack of any honesty.

Every case like this shines some more much-needed sunlight.

It's like a Christian obtaining a certificate which says "I am a child of god".

Okey dokes. Good for you. I appreciate that the analogy above is hypothetical but the GRC has just as much impact in law as this would do.

Not the Equality Act, the Gender Recognition Act.

This seems to be the key to the ruling:
93. It is clear that there are two main currents coursing through the Applicant’s life: his clear and settled identification as male, in which sex I find there is abundant evidence that he continues to live; and his desire to have a family. In my judgement, there is nothing further he could do to reconcile these two powerful instincts. To require him to abandon either one for the other would be to dismantle and fracture the person he is. The GRA 2004 and the case law which preceded it recoiled from compelling such an invidious choice.

I find the language very un-legalistic: a 'desire to have a family' is not the same as 'becoming pregnant'. For males, as the judge fully accepts the applicant is, the 'desire to have a family' means forming a relationship with a member of that half of the human race which has the capacity to become pregnant.

It does not mean becoming pregnant himself.

there is nothing further he could do to reconcile these two powerful instincts
He [I'm using the ruling's pronouns for convenience but also because it highlights the issue of what constitutes 'living as a man' ] could have done any one of a number of things any man who wants to have a family can do: he could form a relationship with a biological woman and they could have a child; he could form a relationship with a biological woman who already has children; he could adopt a child; he could foster a child; he could engage a surrogate mother [the Applicant considered this but it was too complicated and expensive..]

[I'm not stating approval of any of these, just pointing out the avenues that are available to men who desire to have a family, as an alternative to becoming pregnant themselves.]

A transman also has the possibility of acknowledging that by deciding to renounce being a woman, he has also, logically, renounced becoming pregnant and giving birth.

The language in this part of the ruling is surprisingly emotive, becoming pregnant is presented as an irresistible biological imperative that must not be denied or it will 'dismantle and fracture the person he is' .

'currents coursing through the Applicant's life', desire to have a family', 'powerful instincts', 'abandoning', 'dismantling', 'fracturing', 'recoiling from an invidious choice'... as prose goes, it's all a bit purple, isn't it? with hints of biological essentialism.

"I plan to stick to he/him pronouns and present as male
throughout my pregnancy and everyone is aware of this".
This is tragic and laughable in equal measure. This woman sounds extremely mentally unwell, not to say deluded and, of course, expecting everyone else to participate in her delusion.

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.

The court in this case tried to avoid it

[58] There is no statutory definition or Guidance as to the meaning of living in one’s acquired gender. Mr Roberts has referred to this as “a matter of some political controversy”. It is not the role of this Court to adjudicate on political controversy.

The court was referred to three cases

Jay v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWHC 2620 (Fam), [2019] 1 FLR 811

Jay was married and divorced three times. He had seven children. The third marriage ended when he went to prison for eight years. Jay claimed that he started living as a woman half way through his second marriage and that he carried on living as a woman "as far as possible" while he was in a male prison.

The evidence of "living in their acquired gender" was a deed poll change of name while in prison and then a passport and driving licence in the new name after release from prison.
.

The second case was

AB v Gender Recognition Panel [2024] EWHC 1456 (Fam), [2025] 1 WLR 227

This case was also referred to in FWS at [91]

AB received hormone replacement therapy and testosterone blockers from the age of 17. Although there was a sentence that sounded quite odd "except for a brief period around 2017 when she ceased taking testosterone blockers to retain capacity for sexual activities.". Perhaps AB wanted to become a father?

The evidence provided was, a deed poll change of name, a letter from a doctor confirming a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome, a passport, bank statements, a Dutch residence card. All in a new name
.

Finally,

Carpenter v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 464 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 4111

This case was also referred to in FWS at [85]

Carpenter had actually had surgery. This was considered to be "...overwhelming evidence of the existence now or previously of gender dysphoria and of the desire of the applicant to live in the acquired gender until death."

So, men either get their bits chopped off or just do a deed poll and get a new passport.

Tragic. I also feel for any resulting baby. It's not getting off to the best start in life 😟

Christ on a bike. The poor girl - there's obviously deep seated trauma. I hope she has someone who cares for her

(obviously the whole GRC certificate process is utterly ludicrous)

In the latter part of the ruling it states that the woman has spinal issues that would mean having a c-section even without the testosterone.

Have Kings College hospital lost their tiny minds enabling this poor kid to have IVF and then more miscarriages

Logically there is no way you could stop a man who identifies as a woman, using their sperm to get a woman pregnant and I wouldn’t be confident this was always brought up at GRC panels. I guess once through the panel they can do what they want. Obviously the judge highlights ‘there is scant authority as to what living in the acquired gender’ actually means, which I don’t think is the ‘win’ the GLP seem to think.

OK, thanks. I'm not convinced by the logic, but I don't see much logic in gender recognition to be honest.

That isn't what eugenics means, though.

Page 22
He wants to have at least 2 children and he may restart testosterone therapy temporarily when he has had 1 child, or may wait until he has completed his family.”

Where is this 21 year old getting the money to have IVF in the UK and abroad

Who is suggesting phalloplasty to her (which has a sky high failure rate)

Paper moon and cardboard sea, and it wouldn't be make believe if you believed in me...... Just as well the GRC means nothing much now.

That ruling is really sad.

A deeply deluded girl who has already had two miscrriages
She has already had her breasts cut off
she is not in a relationship
she is using IVF to try to conceive
she has found a midwife who 'deals with transmen'

Her right to change her legal gender to male should not be conditional on her agreeing not to exercise her right to have children. That's the logic, anyway.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic It's putting a precondition of not having children on getting the GRC.