I’ve forgotten what the definition of sealioning is, but going back to the topic of the thread……
If you’ve watched the Ruth Bader Ginsberg film you’ll be familiar with the argument that courts / judges are influenced by the developing social context they exist within in.
That point (albeit not in those exact words) is recognised in the Council of Europe Report I linked to.
20 “The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) is the judicial institution that has dealt with the largest number of cases related to gender identity and transgender persons. It has embraced evolving social realities…”
31 “In conclusion, the Court’s case law has dynamically evolved since it declared a violation of Article 8 concerning the recognition of transgender persons for the first time almost 30 years ago in the case of B. v. France in 1992.37 What was considered a breakthrough at the time needs to continu- ously evolve not only to reflect the evolution of societal norms and attitudes with regard to gender identity but to offer genuine protection to all, including transgender and intersex persons.”
42 “The level of protection for LGR achieved at a certain point in time cannot be considered locked once and for all. Like all human rights, it requires adaptation to present-day needs and adjustments of the legal framework according to impact assessments and latest international trends…”
65 “Overall, this thematic review process has shown solid benefits in sup- porting planned or on-going reforms in the field of LGR, enhancing the visi- bility of the human rights issues raised by LGR, facilitating dialogue between all stakeholders and importantly, giving a voice to transgender and intersex persons in the discussions of the issues that affect them in their lives.”
72 Member States should examine their civil status requirements for LGR to ensure that such requirements do not affect the acquired rights of the spouses and children, and that a solution to protect those rights is in place, in line with the Court’s jurisprudence.
73 Member States should ensure that LGR procedures for children centre on the best-interest-of-the-child principle and should review explicit or implicit age restrictions that may obstruct that principle in order to ensure children’s access to legal recognition, health and security.
Here’s how Council of Europe defines gender identity:
“Gender identity: is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or func- tion by medical, surgical, or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.”
Gender/Sex marker: Legal sex appearing on documents (birth certificates, identification documents, etc.
Legal Gender Recognition: is understood as the legal recognition of a person’s gender identity, including name, sex/gender marker and other gender-related information, which may be reflected in surnames, social security numbers/personal identification numbers, titles etc., in public registries, records, identification documents (identity cards, passports, driving licences) and other similar documents (educational certificates etc).
Sex: refers to the biological characteristics used to define humans as female or male. These sets of biological characteristics are not mutually exclusive.
Transgender: is an umbrella expression referring to persons who have a gen- der identity different from predominant social expectations based on the person’s sex assigned at birth.
The report took those definitions from a Council of Europe glossary, the link to it is broken though.
No idea what they mean by “not mutually exclusive”.
I note the phrase “is understood as” in the definition of legal gender recognition, which sounds like it’s not prescribed in statute and could be described as a “political definition”. Lol.