Australian court rules that a person who now identifies as a transwoman was not a tw when he got married

[QuietContraryMary]

The petition was to annul a longstanding marriage which produced children, the husband now having transitioned to transwoman, the claimed basis for annulment was that at the time of marriage the husband was a she.

This was rejected, the court ruling that his presentation at the time, fathering children, etc. shows that he was at the time a he, even if now a she.

Thus all this innate gender identity, female soul, assigned at birth, etc is rejected as bollocks.

www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FamCA2018/953.html

She is now a she, but when talking about their historical self 'he' is the appropriate pronoun.

I.e. Bruce Jenner won Olympic gold medals. He was decathlon medalist.

The careless conflation of sex and gender in that ruling is profoundly irritating.

The applicant’s case was premised on the contention that the respondent’s gender at the time of their marriage should more properly be divined by investigation of her psychological identification of gender, rather than her physiological representation of gender, which dichotomy raises interesting questions about the criteria used to ascribe a person’s gender. Is it by reference to the way the person looks? Is it by reference to the way the person feels? Is it by reference to some other factor? Or is it a combination or permutation of all?

Historically, at least in the United Kingdom, it was held a person’s gender was determined at birth by the exclusively biological factors of chromosomes, gonads and genitals and that the designated gender was thereafter incapable of change

Most people innocently conflate sex and gender.