The News Agents on legislating for something that isn't real.

[southbiscay]

On Tuesday's episode, in relation to government talk of legislating to declare Rwanda a safe country, the presenters rightly derided the idea of trying to make something a fact simply by passing a law saying it is.

But few in the media or government seem concerned about the GRA which does precisely the same thing. While we tinker around with trying to amend the EA to define sex as biological for the purposes of the Act (and by implication suggesting there is more than one definition of sex, which in itself is unhelpful and will come back to bite us), getting to the root of the issue by pressing for repeal of the GRA is ignored.

I hope that the groups with sufficient clout and very high profile supporters will come around to campaigning for this.

It wouldn't have been a strategic stance a couple of years ago but the dial has moved significantly since then and it is time to make it part of the public conversation.

I agree. No government should pass a law declaring a lie to be the truth. The GRA was a very frightening step beyond tolerance of different lifestyles and into enforced submission to an ideology.

It's a bit complicated

A legal fiction exists in law. One definition "a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false".

One of the most common is adoption - a child being made the child of adoptive parent(s) for all purposes despite not being biologically their offspring.

I doubt whether legal fiction as a concept can be done away with.

The argument will have to be which legal fictions are acceptable.

The similarity of passing a law to make Rwanda safe and passing a law to make men women had struck me too. Also, the difference in the reactions from some parts.

How can a government legislate for something over which they have no control, they cannot define, and which may change drastically from the position it was in when the law was passed?

I get what you mean but a) people don't self identify as being adoptive parents, there's still quite a lot of assessment before you get approved and b) adoptive parents aren't demanding we pretend they literally gave birth to the child. The original birth certificate AFAIK is left alone.

So it's a much higher bar than someone getting a letter to say they will live as the other gender (whatever that means, I have never figured that out after years of asking) and getting a new birth certificate.

interesting parallel
the one difference is that deciding whether Rwanda is safe or not is subjective whereas biological sex is objective - so arguably you can define Rwanda as safe through law, but not redefine the absolute nature of sex - it is therefore actually ironically the wrong way around for those who protest about a law ref. Rwanda and yet don't protest about the GRA

That is exactly what I mean.

I don't believe we can get rid of legal fiction as a part of the law.

We can decide which ones we are prepared to accept

I agree with you. That certainly didn't happen with the GRA (except for a few MPs and Lords bringing up prisons, sport etc and having concerns waved away by the likes of David Lammy who thinks you can give men cervixes).

One of the most common is adoption - a child being made the child of adoptive parent(s) for all purposes despite not being biologically their offspring.

This is often stated by TRAs but it's complete nonsense. Adoption doesn't in any sense pretend that the adoptive parents are the biological parents.

Biological parents have had their parental rights severed before adoption can even be considered but they are still named on the birth certificate. An adoption certificate doesn't replace a birth certificate, it's merely an equivalent form of ID to ensure privacy for the adoptee. Most importantly- being a parent is not a purely genetic function, it's something you do. Anyone who raises and cares for a child is their parent in a very real sense.

Honestly, I'm always bemused that anyone can be so tactless and ignorant as to make this comparison.

what about having same sex parents on the birth certificate? I'd say that's a legal fiction.

Adoption doesn't in any sense pretend that the adoptive parents are the biological parents.

It makes them the legal parents, giving them all the rights and responsibilities of biological parents.

Ask a lawyer or law lecturer whether adoption is a legal fiction, since you evidently don't believe me.

The two situations are the same in that the fiction serves the immediate needs of the executive.

This government wants to send refugees to Rwanda and doesn't care what happens to them there, so it declares it safe enough.

The previous government wanted to look progressive and so declared that men can be women if they want to. In fairness, I think it took a while to sink in that this was unsafe for - and unfair to - actual women.

it took a while to sink in that this was unsafe for - and unfair to - actual women.

Unsurprising. That requires understanding the notoriously tricky concept that women are people.

I was listening to something on Radio 4 - PM, I think - and when I heard someone saying the words "You can't make something true by passing a law saying it is true" I honestly thought they were talking about the GRA. And then it turned out it was about Rwanda.

When is someone going to join the dots?

I'm going to say upfront I disagree with the Rwanda plan which seems to be mainly a political tool and unlikely to really make a difference to immigration (quite aside from moral objections). I also note Labour does not have a better plan (or indeed any plan) and it's a serious problem that needs better solutions.

Having said that, it's a brilliant move from the Tories to weaponise the batshit reality denial of the left against them. If you can make it a legal fiction that something as black and white as binary sex in mammals isn't true against the daily evidence of our senses, then faking that Rwanda is a safe country is much less implausible and open to debate.

You've only got to glance at Eddie Izzard and it's 'bloke' whereas most people living in this country probably don't know that much about the state of things in Rwanda.

I'm looking forward to them saying 'Rwanda is a safe country, no debate'.

Yea , it was some Tory politician who said it was like a law saying that all cats are dogs. Ian Hislop repeated the same line, as a joke, on HIGNFY.

I think most people can see through the fallacy of trying to compare adoption (which has evolved over time because of the number of orphans or vulnerable children) and the demands of trans activists....

Gender ideology myth number 20:
Some parents can parent a child even though the child isn't biologically their own. Therefore men can be women...
Limited argument at best. To parent is a verb and a noun. You can parent in a certain way but you can't woman in a certain way.

‘A Parliament can do anything except a man into a woman and a woman into a man.’ John Stuart Mill I think.

turns out he wasn’t right though because it actually can do the above….

I think a better example of a legal fiction is the concept of a company (an abstract concept) having a legal identity that is separate from its owners and employees.

I know adoption is sometimes described as a legal fiction, but it’s not clear which part of the process is a fiction. It might have been more usual for the fact and details of adoption to be concealed in the past, but that is not intrinsic to the adoption process.

Neither of these examples are comparable to a GRA, because the limits and purpose of the registration of a company or an adoption are clear. However gender is not clearly defined in law.

I also note Labour does not have a better plan (or indeed any plan) and it's a serious problem that needs better solutions.

They do have a plan - more co-operation with France to manage trafficking, more co-operation with countries like Albania to process quick returns, more efficient processing of claims. Weirdly the Tories have had recent success/made improvements in all three areas, and it has had an impact. But they are still bafflingly obsessed with Rwanda.

Also Labour’s policy could be ‘change nothing, and also don’t send millions to Rwanda’, and that would still be an improvement.

also you can’t legislate for feelings. Most people will say they’ve been or are currently in love, but love can’t be written into law. We can legislate for marriage, but there’s no law that you have to be in love to be married. People can be deeply in love but not married and people can be married and not in love.
we shouldn’t try to legislate for gender feels. How can anyone know how another person actually feels. And more importantly, how can you prove that in law?

Once again, adoption and legal persons as opposed to "natural persons" (e.g. corporations) are legal fictions.

Legal fictions exist. The question is, do we accept any particular legal fiction?

I believe that rests on whether we believe it to be beneficial or harmful, on the whole, to individuals and society.

If we believe a legal fiction which has already been created is harmful, then we should campaign to have it extirpated.

A legal fiction is not necessary for trans people to get good healthcare, freedom from discrimination, and alterations in their official documents. It is needed for TW to access mandatory (HSE etc) and permissive (SSEs to the EA) women-only spaces.

This reminded us that the real oppressor - meaning the half of the population that wields disproportionate physical, economic and political power - is still out there, and that's why we need our spaces, so we can conspire against the men defend safety, fairness and decency for women.

So we should focus on making mandatory spaces truly women-only (Badenoch has made a start on the Building Regs.), getting rid of the 'legitimate and proportionate aims' BS from the EA (we should be allowed our spaces 'just because'), and lobbying for additional mandatory spaces eg if a service provider sets up multiple groups by sex/gender, at least one must be women-only

Went off-topic: apologies...

I know that is the term used, but it seems an imprecise use of language. Where is the fiction in an adoption?

That the adoptive parents are the child' s parents.

In law, 'parents' normally means the biological parents. And 'mother' means 'a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth'.