Freddy McConnell appeal today (Transman who wants to be registered as their child's father) *Title edited by MNHQ*

[MrsSnippyPants]

Haven't seen anything about this and it just popped up on Sky News. Hearing continues tomorrow

Newspaper report here
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/transgender-man-who-gave-birth-21629478

Barracker is a superstar

Yes, agree with above^^. Barracker, your analogy is really good, and very easy for everyone to see how ridiculous it would be, and therefore how ridiculous this TRA stuff is.

Barracker another classic.
This needs to be written as an article, like the Rohypnol one, so that it doesn't get lost in the MN underground. Would you consider that?

I haven't seen this Youtube here yet, of Piers Morgan arguing our case. While I hate the way he aggressively shouts (typical male) down the woman arguing that men can be mothers , he is right on point. Good to see that the other women agree with him.

While it's true that a single parent, whether male or female, performs both roles, mother and father, he or she IS not both. And really, the roles are interchangeable; being a mother or a father is not limited to the role you play. It's also biological fact: male or female.

The Goodwin case whose ECHR judgement prompted the UK to write the GRA in 2004 was based on complaints in relation to employment, social security and pensions and Goodwin’s inability to marry.

We’ve sorted out same sex marriage and I understand pensions, and social security and employment discrimination would be covered by the Equalities Act 2010. Yet we retain the GRA now it seems purely for emotional validation, I haven’t seen any other arguments for retaining it but would be interested to hear of them. I am not a a lawyer.

My understanding of the employment part of this case was to do with someone potentially being 'outed' at work to their employers via their NI number, since this number cannot be changed so would be linked to the person's previous name. The argument was that the employer should have no right to know the person's biological sex or their previous identity.

The argument was that the employer should have no right to know the person's biological sex or their previous identity.

It is extraordinary that a group of people have so much legislative & social protection to hide their identity, facts from their past & to prevent others from acknowledging/discussing what may be very relevent to the employer.

Who else is accorded such treatment:
Those in a witness protection program?
Spies?
Those granted anonymity orders with reporting restrictions after conviction of serious offences. (applies to under 18 years with only a handful of lifelong exceptions granted lifetime anonymity. Extreme cases eg Mary Bell, Maxine Carr, the Edlington brothers, Jon Venables Robert Thompson etc)?
Those with sufficient wealth to secure super injunctions?

Barracker - your post sent a shiver down my spine. It is superb, thank you.

Barracker excellent writing. Would a new paper run it, in context? They get hold of stories from mumsnet why not this?

Lamahaha

I'm confused by that clip with Piers Morgan and that woman (not Sonia Poulton).

She appeared to be saying that if a man was nurturing and caring towards a child he was mothering? As if nurturing and caring are specifically female characteristics? Which appears to be very sexist, to me.

And she repeated it, over and over. But still saying that it was Piers who was regressive.

She wasn't talking about a woman identifying as a man. She was actually saying that mothering, the verb, constitutes behaviour that when displayed by men, were still stereotypically female? Surely the behaviour of nurturing and caring, when displayed by men, isn't 'mothering'?

And she appeared very woke, so it's confused me more than anything!

The GRA granted the key "female" to people who are male, and who have their own home already. And it removed the right of women to be able to say 'we are not family', or 'this is not actually your home' to any male with that key

Also called colonisation - and utilising all of the same practices to suppress the rights and even existence of the unwilling 'host'.

Re the video: that woman said she had the “skills” to become a father (I think). Can she think she’s capable of impregnating another woman? Well nothing would surprise me now (OTOH she’s probably incapable of understanding that Words Have Meaning).

The argument was that the employer should have no right to know the person's biological sex

But biological sex is visible in a single glance usually, or by shaking someone's hand. Men and women look and feel completely different.
It's a physical reality.

Things like sexual preferences, dietary choices, details of medical issues can be private, but not something which is easily recognised.

And, Datun, she was very annoyingly confusing the noun 'mother' with the verb 'to mother'.

Mother [noun] is the female parent, as we all know. In law it is also the person who gives birth to the child.

And, Datun, she was very annoyingly confusing the noun 'mother' with the verb 'to mother'.

Yes she was.

She just seemed so adamant. I wasn't sure if she realised what she was saying sounded, to me at least, sexist.

Piers didn't pick up on that aspect, obvs!

Yes, Daria, that’s what I was getting at too...

I'm surprised that Sonia Poulton was taking that approach.

Excellent posts Barrack

The argument was that the employer should have no right to know the person's biological sex or their previous identity.

I've had another look at the ECtHR ruling in this case since writing that earlier. One of the claims was a violation of Article 8, which is to do with the right to a private life. The part I was referring to was this:

16. In 1996, the applicant started work with a new employer and was required to provide her National Insurance (“NI”) number. She was concerned that the new employer would be in a position to trace her details as once in the possession of the number it would have been possible to find out about her previous employers and obtain information from them. Although she requested the allocation of a new NI number from the Department of Social Security (“DSS”), this was rejected and she eventually gave the new employer her NI number. The applicant claims that the new employer has now traced back her identity as she began experiencing problems at work. Colleagues stopped speaking to her and she was told that everyone was talking about her behind her back.

The court ruled in favour of Goodwin on this point, leading to the GRA, and new birth certificates and NI numbers being issued to people who obtain a GRC. But if even employers are not allowed to know if someone they employ has a GRC, I can't see how the EA2010 exemptions can work in practice. If an employer is not allowed to know whether an individual has a GRC (which seems to be an important part of the GRA), how can they invoke the EA exemptions for a post in which they could, in theory, legitimately exclude a transwoman with a GRC?

Datun, yes, the woman is very confused, she doesn't seem to know what she is saying. I kept shouting at her, silently! sort out your nouns and verbs, your roles and skill sets! It's a total mess.

And: just in case anyone thinks Barracker's vision is exaggerated, this is what a FB friend shared, from a blog I won't link to here. I though it was satire, but I went to the blog itself and TRA's are all repeating it. That's what they do. The claims get more preposterous all the time, and yet immediately become the new basic "truth".

I do hope more of them do interviews in the ordinary press with ordinary journalists for ordinary people to read

That mahunel person has got it complete assbackwards, the poor simpleton.

Wow! There is a serious level of delusion out there......reinforced by social media echo chambers, and a total lack of contact with reality.
Ma Hunkel is a cos-play character.

If only Lisa Nandy knew.........

I'm hoping the passport judgment today indicates direction of travel for this case. Do we know when the decision is likely?

Independent by Maya Oppenheim
People cannot define themselves as gender neutral on passports, court rules
'Non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights,' says campaigner
(extract)
A campaigner who wants passports to include a category for those who do not identify as male or female has lost a Court of Appeal challenge over gender neutral passports.

Christie Elan-Cane, who wants passports to include an “X” category for such individuals, believes the current UK passport policy infringes the right to privacy.

Senior judges ruled against the campaigner who has been fighting for legal and social recognition for non-gendered identity for more than 25 years.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling the refusal to issue non gender-specific passports was not unlawful.

Elan-Cane deems the UK passport system, which forces people to say whether they are male or female, to be “inherently discriminatory”.

The campaigner hit out at the three senior judges' ruling and said lawyers will seek permission to appeal the decision so the case can be heard before the Supreme Court.

Elan-Cane said: ‘’Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights. It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3844124-Gender-neutral-passport-rules-are-unlawful-Court-of-Appeal-hears

Think of the books Christie Elan-Cane could've read in all that time...🤷🏻‍♀️

Declaring your birth sex is not being forced to declare an inappropriate gender. Imagine spending 25 years of your life fighting for the right to be declared neither sex because you refuse to accept that everyone is either male or female.
I still say a huge amount of mental disturbance is at play here.