They is suing the U.K. government to become neither male nor female after op to create cavity...

[aweegc]

I don't want to link to the article (DM) or write this person's name as I'm sure they're keeping an eye everywhere.

Basically there's a case reported in the U.K. family courts with someone who kept male genitalia and had surgery to create a "fully functioning" cavity. Person wants to legally be recognised as non binary because they feel a bit male and a bit female.

I'd like to know if this person can define what "woman feelings" are and how they're different from "man feelings". I'd also like to be reassured that this person isn't bringing a transphobic case by reducing identity to genitals.

And I'd like to know why this even ended up in court in the first place. If I feel a little bit cat-like and get one surgically altered to be like a fully functioning cat ear, or get my fingers amputated on one hand to make it like a "fully functioning" paw, can I be legally recognised by my new semi-feline gender?

So it's a man who can atrificially receive a thrusting penis without damaging his rectum and anal sphincter?

And that makes him womanly in some way?

I can't believe how mean people are being in doubting this poor person's assertions. All they need to do is gestate and then give birth to a baby through their 'fully functioning hole' and then that'll teach all the bigots, won't it....

Would it also have worked the other way, if a biological female had kept all of her physical attributes, but also had a sausage sewn on to her body? Would that count as a 'fully functioning penis'? Or would it have been claimed as a 'fully functioning pokey-stick-thing', which is more like the equivalent of what has been claimed in this case?

This is all so obviously rooted in deep-seated misogyny: when 'woman' is defined as nothing more than somebody with a 'hole' (with the obvious implication that the only purpose and importance of that 'hole' is for the use of men), it tells you a great deal about what that person making this 'definition' really thinks about women and how 'femaleness' is nothing more than a fetish to them.

They want to keep their cake/penis and eat the cherry on the top don't they?

These are the cases that I want to have maximum publicity.

It takes a very special case of arrogance to be so obsessed about what other people are going to write and read on your death certificate - mainly only for a few months, whilst your affairs are sorted, before being filed away and largely unviewed again.

A bit like the whole pronoun thing, with the demands of how other people should refer to you when you are not present.

I'd understand a bit more if there was the prospect of some kind of insult or slur being put on the perpetual public record of your death - maybe if, say, it was the done thing to record details of crimes that you had been accused of committing during your life, and you'd been commonly believed to have done something bad of which you vehemently protested your innocence - but 'male' and 'female' are in no way insults or marks of shame: they are just standard descriptive terms that boringly signify a biological fact, and which every single person has one of.

I don't know if this is the same case as the article doesn't say anything about surgery.
But this Californian wants to change British law and make non-binary a legal gender and is pursuing a high court case.

The judge sounds sympathetic, no doubt thoroughly in thrall to stonewall. We can only hope this case fails.

Archive link from the Telegraph

archive.ph/2023.04.01-075841/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/31/non-binary-legal-gender-recogniiton-uk-high-court-challenge/

Meant to add this quote from the judge.

"From the appellant’s point of view, the offence and bother of having to declare yourself a gender you have never been is just intolerable... it must have been."

Oh fuck off back to California.

Why aren’t these people just told “no”?

Sounds like the same person. They had surgery previously to create a "vagina" so their body aligns with their gender identity of not having a gender...

Surely, if anything, they should be "bigender" not gender nonbinary?

Ooh? Have I just created the eleventy-billion-and-oneth gender?!

If he ever went through male puberty he is a male. If he wants to be a plural, fair enough, he can call himself whatever the hell he likes but i am not being made to lie to suit him.

• “The appellant’s gender is non-binary, in a strictly legal construction. The appellant is not a person of either gender,” the judge added.

From The Telegraph article linked above.

What does it actually mean by "a strictly legal construction"? Is there a legal definition of gender as opposed to sex (in England)?

I cannot imagine though the effort some people go through to prove some kind of point. Creating a non self lubricating cavity that needs constant attention for the rest of someone’s life just to be considered not a male???

I cannot imagine the geriatric care these patients will require.

Working in geriatric care will be hell in years to come @Helleofabore
People with sagging bits of silicone in various areas, festering old wounds, fetishists demanding that their personal care includes regular dilations, people with dementia who have forgotten they changed sex and are even more confused, rampant incontinence due to all the failed genital surgeries and even more osteoporosis from all the poor young women who went through menopause before they'd even gone through puberty.

Glad I won't be around for it.

Excellent point.

In thousand of years when their birth certificate is long reduced to dust, scientists studying his bones will still be able to tell what sex he was.

I should have added - of course most of the work will still be done by underpaid women....there are some areas where sex always trumps gender reasons beyond my understanding. 🤔

How depressing that femininity and womanhood appear to have been reduced to a "cavity" for a penis to go into. And this is considered progressive?

How have we gone backwards so much, so blindly? I'm more than a cavity and a pair of false eyelashes.

Surely if he wanted to both keep his prick AND have a fully functioning hole, they could have just pointed out his arsehole?

"From the appellant’s point of view, the offence and bother of having to declare yourself a gender you have never been is just intolerable... it must have been."

Why is it an offence or bother to have to take a second to state which sex you happen to share with half of the world? If it is such an ordeal, maybe you could have not deliberately messed around with things so that it would still be obvious and nobody would need to ask you in the first place.

Or is this another 'clear' demonstration of 'sex is NOT the same as gender when that suits our case, but sex IS the same as gender when that suits us'?

The NB's a confusing suitor
They's masc and fem and sometimes neuter
They asks each day "Now what may come,
Am I husband, wife or chum?"

with apologies to Ogden Nash

If we had the brightest and the best who were able to think critically this ridiculousness would never have started,

Individuals should have never been allowed to change their birth certificate, you are either observed male or female at birth. If people 'feel' they are something else then they can believe that themselves but official documents should not have been changed. By doing so there is an 'acceptance' of gender. Your birth certificate does not show your gender it shows your sex.

This was really very simple to do but the powers that be have messed it up. It would have saved us all these problems. Here is your bc with your sex, if you want to identify as something else then have an identity vet and you can write what you like in it but I has now legal meaning and does not change your status for official purposes.

In a last note, I have a fully functioning hole, we all do, it's a bum hole. I also have another organ called a vagina that cannot be made, it's specific to adult human females.

This is what I imagine Fanny.

Will there need to be geriatric reversal surgeries?

What happened to medical ethics anyway?

Exactly. Have they now created body parts that are simply unsustainable and require further complicated surgeries as the patient ages?

How is that ethical?

It's depressing isn't it!