Why are trans things discussed in Feminism section not a separate topic or have I missed something?

[PearlyG8]

Slightly confused. Apologies for any unintended offence.

Thank you spontaneous 😘 though I have a horrible feeling that Section 9 bit and the legal fiction is true... nonetheless, salt cellar at the ready...

Do your own research, don't rely on that poster they are a TRA so post from that perspective.

I don't know but they have admitted to being a TRA so I can't be struck for saying so.

Would suggest at all information posted on these boards is taken as just things posted on a forum and if you are unsure about any of the facts then you can always spend the time and look things up. This stands for all posters and is good advise.

Thanks all. I will be looking up the Act later on!

We used to have a poster here called Gibberty. They posted the same sort of thing - they were banned!

I can't immediate see the actual link that Snappity has posted. Have I missed it?

It wasn’t a link, it was a copied bit on bottom of p5 I think Datun

I have def seen that phrase before about becoming the new sex, but I had thought it was that recent thing in Scottish law where they sort of snuck it in?

Yes bottom of p5, Snappity (allegedly?) quotes section 9 of the GRA.

Always check it out yourself. They have been known to edit.
In fact some transgender organization supplied councils with lists of protected characteristics from the EA that somehow managed to either erase sex as a protected characteristic or replace it with gender which is not a protected characteristic.
I was amazed at how different the EA was from what the TRA said it was. So were the councils when they were informed they had been duped.

The excerpt from the GRA that Snappity posted is legit and they are correct on the interpretation point, although it's a fairly nuanced point and it's particularly important to bear in mind that history cannot be rewritten and the GRA only changes the interpretation of the documents going forward from the date that the GRC is issued.

This point is just plain silly though:

Sex becomes that shown on the new birth certificate "for all purposes".

There are no exemptions to that. Sex is absolute.

After saying that upon a GRC being issued the legal sex changes, the Act goes on immediately to say that this "does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued" and that this "is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation." I think any reasonable person would regard those as big exceptions. The explanatory notes included with the Act even refer to exceptions!!
"9. Subsection (3) means that the general proposition is subject to exceptions made by the remainder of the Act and, for the future, by any other enactment or subordinate legislation."

I think Snappity is getting too focussed on the wording tbh. Yes, the Act might say that a person's sex changes but it is, after all, a piece of legislation rather than magic and therefore in the real world it just means that people with a GRC should be treated as their new gender/sex. In the same way, companies have corporate personalities under the law but I hope even Snappity wouldn't believe that eg their bank is really a person.

So if you take s19 of the GRA for example which says that a GRC "does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour," that means that the person with a GRC is effectively still treated as their birth sex for the purposes of the succession rules, and it is therefore an exception to the general position that people with GRCs are treated as their new gender/sex. It is an exception regardless of how it is phrased. It doesn't have to literally say that the person with a GRC is still their original sex for succession purposes, that is it's effect.

I'm just going to reiterate that the legal position is just the legal position. It does not change material reality. Parliament could pass a law saying that grass is now a rather fetching shade of fuchsia if they wanted to, but the grass would still be green.

Sorry I meant "its effect." not "it's effect." Apologies if there are any other typos.

Stupid errant apostrophe undermining my credibility

Excellent explanation, AllyMcBeagle and sod the errant "it's"!

Snappity is very focused on the biological ideals. Those ideals are apparently, in Snappity world, ideals that make Caitlyn Jenner a woman.

I suspect Snappity lives in a world where Snappity thinks the entire 8 billion humans would or should consider Jenner to be just that.

I think 7.9999999999999999999 billion are unconvinced Snappity.

We do not share Snappity's beliefs so they will just keep hectoring us until we submit or they drive us away.
I do not think they care much which they achieve.

"The excerpt from the GRA that Snappity posted is legit and they are correct."

I am a woman. Please use female pronouns in future

You haven't said what you mean when you say woman. I think I mean something different by it, but I'm not sure tbh. We need to have the same meanings for words if we are to talk to each other. What's your meaning for it?

You have no leverage to force women to obey you here.

"So if you take s19 of the GRA for example which says that a GRC "does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour," that means that the person with a GRC is effectively still treated as their birth sex for the purposes of the succession rules, and it is therefore an exception to the general position that people with GRCs are treated as their new gender/sex. It is an exception regardless of how it is phrased. It doesn't have to literally say that the person with a GRC is still their original sex for succession purposes, that is it's effect."

It is very sad that someone whom I think is a lawyer gets it wrong. Firstly, peerages are covered in s16 not s19 as @AllyMcBeagle states. So let's quote s16:

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—

(a)does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and
(b)does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.

Firstly noted that although Ally claims this is an exception to the change of sex/gender, that the section itself refutes that and explicitly says that the gender has become the acquired gender (which by s9 reaffirms that sex has become the acquired sex). So s16 - not s19 - is definitely not an exception as claimed.

Moreover, Ally says, "that the person with a GRC is effectively still treated as their birth sex for the purposes of the succession rules," but there is nothing in the text of the statute to reflect that view. Subsection a) says nothing about the person who has changed sex. What it says is that the change of sex doesn't change already established lines of inheritance. Why should it? They are already set. Why should one person changing sex affect whether or not a second person inherits a peerage? It clearly should not. And that is what s16 says. It is a section about lines of succession and not about the person who has changed sex.

This is not an example that the change of sex hasn't taken place.

"Pretty sure Snappity is a PBP and thus shouldn't be here at all according to the rules."

Untrue

The indicator that shows no change of sex has taken place is the fact that no change of sex has taken place, and that the person has remained the original sex, and that they are still the sex they were before the piece of paper was issied. Three huge clues that no change of sex has taken place.

Eh? What indicator? That reads as nonsensical to me.

You choose not to understand the clear exceptions in the EA and GRA.
I am not surprised you are unable to understand the perfectly clear writing of Pratchet.