A Belfast court judgment has been hailed by as a “landmark” moment in UK transgender rights by influential campaign group Stonewall.

[stumbledin]

However, a prominent critic of transgender activism has said it looks like a way of introducing a contentious change in the law “through the back door” – rather than via a political route.

www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/belfast-court-trans-judgment-a-major-change-to-the-system-3240452

Then you'd have evidence from countries with Self-ID where women are refusing to use the toilet, surely
What would that look like then?
As theres plenty of anecdotal evidence that women are using toilets on different floors as they are single sex,
An unspoken agreement is made in many places of which is the single sexed loos and visitors are pointed to their sexed bog. Even though officially they are mixed.
And women (me) are using the disabled loo because its single user.
But who collates this info, who even asks?

@yeahbutnaw

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? Or should it be evidence-based?

No, that would be absolutely absurd, wouldn’t it?

Sorry, cross posted with Charlieparley, but glad to see I read it the same as her!

Sorry, Manderleyagain, my mistake. Old Square, not Old Court.

'I accept that being a transgender woman is an ‘other status’ which would warrant protection
under Article 14 and that the subject matter of these proceedings is plainly within the ambit of the applicant’s Article 8 rights. I am not persuaded that she is in an analogous position to her comparator, namely a non-transgender (or cisgender)
woman; and, in any event, would consider the difference in treatment between the two to be objectively justified...

Ah, that makes sense if it is JR111's chosen comparator, because the legal sex of anyone without a GRC in UK law is their birth sex.

So the judge finds:

TW without a GRC are NW.

A medical diagnosis for a GRC is necessary for the benefit of the patient and for the wider community, so it's a hard legal No to self-ID.

Don't call it a disorder, maybe not even 'gender dysphoria' because there may not be distress but rather 'gender incongruence' which has yet to be defined according to the judgement. Incongruence already has a very specific meaning for psychiatrists who are also seeing other comorbidities alongside, as in the child clinics.

Judgement also highlights the fact that the condition can't be depathologised unlike homosexuality as "the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES), noted that removal altogether from the ICD (as occurred with the depathologisation of homosexuality) was not an option, since gender dysphoria frequently requires medical interventions." So LGB and T don't and can't follow the same path.

Maybe Stonewall prepared their response in advance of the law...

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? OMG but that made me truly laugh out loud - I woke the dog

Are you sure you wanted to say that out loud yeahbutnaw ?

Very good!

I've read a fair chunk of the the judgement now. Really interesting setting out of the evidence about the to-ing and fro-ing between geo, number 10, and civil servants, between the consultation into gra reform and the government coming to a position.

I now see why pp's think it is possible that the need for the person to be experiencing duscinfirt/distress could be removed by changing the criteria from dysphoria to Incongruence. Its not clear at all that it will be, but there are some suggestions from the evidence that it could be.

It's a crap state of affairs that someone who probably would get a grc (& has the right in law to apply for one) can't in practice access that because of a lack of specialists in NI to support the application. It must be horrible for her. It looks like later stages of the case will look at whether that breaches her rights. The answer to this is better resources for this type of care, rather than removing the need for it.

One thing that stood out for me is the tension between arguing that its not a psychological disorder, while also explaining that her feelings of shame at being born male mean she can't bare to have her birth certificate anywhere near. It leaves me thinking that changing the word on the certificate doesn't actually address the issue.

I also find it rather distasteful the way that it is taken as a given that being considered as having a mental health issue is stigmatising and shameful. That's obviously how she feels which I understand, but the fact that all the lobby groups and this court emphasise the stigma is wrong in this decision making is wrong and serves to further entrench that stigma.

Anyway there's a few things in the ruling that helpfully clarifies for us, while other bits open up uncertainties.

Manderleyagain - thanks for thinking this through for those of us not good at grasping detail! And very useful to have it spelt out on a public forum.

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

Women - show evidence that letting biological males into your space may increase the chance you could be harmed. Otherwise you're talking crap basically.

Whilst also knowing that its almost impossible to record data on such harm, as TRAs campaigned to get people to be able to pretend to be the opposite sex when it comes to bloody crime. Its all fine though. In the event of a potential attack, the police can just be called. And if the thousad hoops jumped through are jumped through by the victim, theres another 'dangerous woman' to add to the womens stats! Bravo.

Whilst the judge ruled that the government is still able to require applicants to undergo some kind of diagnosis, it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights to call their condition a “disorder”.

This reads to me as..nope t self ID. However the wording needs to be changed on the requirements, a move away from 'disordder'. Is that right? If so..not sure what stnewall are crowing about?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Do you think policy should be based on feelings alone? OMG but that made me truly laugh out loud - I woke the dog

Are you sure you wanted to say that out loud yeahbutnaw ?

Ha.

I replied before reading much of the thread..a habit I cannot seem to break. This is great, really..

It is a massive privilege to be allowed to change one's birth certificate. Why should there not be barriers to doing this, especially since it brings with it a degree of access (depending on service provider, but policies have been VERY generous in recent years) to women's spaces and even shortlists. There's plenty of evidence that access has been given away even without a GRC, so this lawyer-ventriloquised whinging is in extremely bad taste.

This was written by a transwoman on twitter:

Re evidence discussion.

Ah yes. Because anyone who is a sex offender couldn’t really be trans....

[13] The applicant is concerned about her inability to obtain a GRC as a result of her present lack of ability to secure the necessary report confirming a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Her birth certificate records her gender as male. She says that, for this reason, she does not keep a copy of her birth certificate and “cannot bear to have this document around”, as it makes her feel depressed and totally ashamed. She is reluctant to disclose her birth certificate and feels anxious about the prospect of having to disclose it from time to time for various purposes. The applicant does not presently have a passport, having never left the island of Ireland and having never applied for a passport as (she avers) she did not want to disclose her birth certificate to the passport authorities or to have a passport in her old name and her assigned (rather than her acquired) gender. Obtaining a GRC and, therefore, a birth certificate with which the applicant could associate, would allow her to obtain a passport and would provide her with a further sense of assurance as to the legal recognition of her acquired gender.
[14] The applicant has a bank account and phone contract in her new, preferred name which she says, although sounding simple, was a matter of great significance to her. Generally however, she describes herself as having been “left in limbo” as regards full recognition of her acquired gender, which is causing her further distress, anxiety and anguish.

Somebody needs to tell the judge and JR111 that you don't need a GRC for a passport just a note from your GP (unless that's what the "she avers" refers to). Were they really not paying attention during the ONS census debacle? This is one of several curious inconsistencies that really niggle me about this case and have me looking for my tinfoil hat...

www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender

Gender change
Send one of the following when you apply for a passport:

a Gender Recognition Certificate
a new birth or adoption certificate showing your acquired gender
a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming your change of gender is likely to be permanent