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

Discrimination against...um... homeless trans people?

Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.

In what way is this about the right to have children? Those who are able to bear children – who are all women – were already permitted to do so. This judgement is about the issuing of a GRC which recognises the woman as being administratively a man.

Has anyone given a definition yet of what someone has to do to be "living in their acquired gender"?

Here's a free link:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/w-v-gender-recognition-panel/

As Euripides (or some other clever Ancient Greek) had it "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"...

It seems like this is a good thing? There's a higher principle here which is that the state cannot practice eugenics - the right to have children is a core human right and empowering the state to decide whether people are allowed to have children has led to many horrific violations in history. It's in everyone's interest to uphold this principle. If it makes a nonsense of a downstream law then that's to be handled in the nonsense legislation. We shouldn't undo the principle of the right to reproduce.

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/w-v-gender-recognition-panel/

Link to judgement here, as I didn't want to take GLPs spin as gospel.

Yeah that makes logical sense, but you're forgetting the circular logic that now applies.
A "man" can give birth in this Brave New World.
Thus this pregnant female IS living as a "man"

Sorry, the journal article is subscription only. Didn't check first.

I think it is a logical decision seen in the context of the current interpretation of human rights laws.

Our human rights laws largely come from the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed in 1953 and quite obviously doesn't say anything about trans rights.

The "human right" to change your legal gender has been retrospectively interpreted into the ECHR, which, quite frankly, is an absolute clusterfuck from a democratic point of view. On the one hand, it is necessary to read between the lines of the ECHR to a certain extent if you want to argue that it is a human right to marry your same sex partner. Otherwise you have to reconvene all the signatory countries to the ECHR and get them to agree to amend it. It's much easier to argue that something which was never contemplated in the original treaty was there in the spirit of it all along. On the other hand, this approach lacks democratic legitimacy because you are trying to force countries to comply with obligations they never actually signed up to.

The legal basis for arguing that people have a human right to change their legal gender comes from the Article 8 rights to a private and family life. If the established position is now that people have a human right to change their legal gender, people who have done this must have all the same human rights as people who have not changed their legal gender. This includes the right to have a family.

If you consider that changing your gender is a human right, it makes sense that such a right should not be conditional on having any particular medical interventions or agreeing not to have children. No other human rights are conditioned in this way.

But the direction of travel with all of these decisions is essentially that:

1. Changing your gender is a human right.
2. People who wish to change their gender cannot be required to do or not do anything which would prevent them from exercising their other human rights.
3. Essentially, trans people should be able to do whatever the hell they like and to even question their logic is inherently transphobic.

At some point I think it has to get to the point where everyone sees how ridiculous it is. And then the pendulum needs to swing back to, "people have the right to change their gender but only in situations where it doesn't infringe anyone else's rights".

And that's when a gender recognition certificate truly becomes a worthless piece of paper.

Solicitors' Journal report here: www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/w-v-gender-recognition-panel-high-court-rules-pregnancy-does-not-preclude-trans-men-from-gender-recognition?category=none

PDF of judgement here: https://W-v-Gender-Recognition-Panel.pdf

To get a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate), you must be over 18, diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and have lived in your affirmed gender for at least two years with the intention to do so permanently. You will need to submit an application with documents like a birth certificate, medical reports, and a statutory declaration to the Gender Recognition Panel.

Clearly if you're a woman wanting to be a man, than having a baby means you're lying on the GRC.

What a nonsense.

I think it's the correct decision based on the wording of the law.

It just shows the absurdity of the fe/male 'gender', and how nonsensical the GRA is.

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.

the GRA needs to be repealed, this is nonsense

If they want a GRC, let them have it.

Tbh I don’t trust any declarations of a “win” by GLP, they’re usually losses that they’ve misunderstood because they’re idiots.

They declare losses as wins, and the law as things that are not the law.

But how did the couple making the baby know who had the ovaries and who had the sperm? Did they each get a wee certificate and then just basically hoped for the best?

'whether someone was living in their acquired gender was “necessarily a far more subtle and nuanced concept” than allowed for by the panel'

It's all cobblers. This nonsense has no place in the law.

Yes, but the point is -- GRCs already aren't worth the paper they're written on. So surely they can crack on.

why? because you have to declare, legally swear, that you are going to live as a man.

and men don't have babies.

It is a fucking joke