Appeal on whether NB can be recorded on a GRC - dismissed

[Justme56]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Castellucci-v-Gender-Recognition-Panel.pdf

Aperture science! 🤢

It is glaringly obvious to women that this is a male's external perception of a vagina as a passive orifice.

Leaving aside that a natural vagina is a passage not a dead end (1), no woman who thought about it for more than a moment would recognise Ryan's idea of a "vagina" in the her own experience. That these men (male NBs and trans women) apparently do consider such an orifice a vagina in itself gives lie to their claim to be "women" or "non-binary". (By their actions shall ye know them indeed)

A woman's vagina is muscular. It clenches and relaxes as her body moves and in response to emotional and physical stimulae. It's as much a part of her physical and emotional sense of self as the feel of her breathing and the tension in her shoulders. Over time she experiences changes in mucus, scent and shape that correspond to her aging and the events of her life.

(1) post hysterectomy a natural vagina may become a dead end but it does not start out that way, and a statistically tiny number of women with DSDs that result in a vagina but no uterus do not invalidate the experience of several billion female humans whose development follows the standard pathway.

Oh well done!

I'm not sure whether to laugh, salute or vomit. There is no appropriate emojii for this...

I doubt this "vagina" even performs the function of providing male sexual pleasure as well as a real one, quite apart from not having any of the other functions a vagina might have.

I came on this thread to post that his Bluesky post was a quote from GLaDOS, but not only have I been pipped to the post by FlirtsWithRhinos, but Cake has managed to get in a perfectly apposite reference to Aperture Science.

I have nothing left to contribute except to say I'm the best one in my family at doing the Portal song on karaoke.

Take it away @AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment

I can’t think of anything more male than a man getting a ‘neovagina’ behind his penis. It screams ‘male fetish’.

It really is another bit of the foundations crumbling away, isn’t it?

It's a classic house built on the sand.

But also, if it's not lined with any kind of penile material, isn't it literally as arousing as having a hole say, in your arm?

Don’t give them ideas

There are some efforts to sneak in "non-binary" recognition though appealing to other authorities too.

This guy got £330 compensation from Direct Line after complaining to the Financial Ombudsman, because they refused to recognise his "Mx" title.

Another is raising a similar case with the Financial Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner's Office because Barclays didn't put "Mx" on a drop-down box in some web form.

It feels a bit Stonewall Law.

The FO operates as an arm of Stonewall.

I wonder what the financial ombudsman thought the grounds were?

I'm not sure whether non binary people are even covered in law under 'gender reassignment', given that they cannot be in the process of seeking gender reassignment.

I think there should be a 'don't care, use my first name' option.

"It's as much a part of her physical and emotional sense of self as the feel of her breathing and the tension in her shoulders."

For me, the whole point is that I have to live with my female reproductive system regardless of whether I feel it is part of my sense of self.

Periods, pregnancy, miscarriage, menopause, female specific illnesses - I have very limited control over these things. When I have control, e.g. contraception, it depends completely on external services that can be withdrawn.

That 'fully functioning vagina' description is a bit of an aha moment for me. For men the consequence of sex is status and the role of reproductive organs is limited to sex, therefore this man can't see further than ego affirmation and sex.

I am however flummoxed that this description would be used in court.

There is a legitimate feminist case for wanting a sex-neutral title to be available (other than earning the right to Dr) - it comes up regularly in threads about Miss/Mrs/Ms . I've never heard of a woman making that sort of ruction and apparently wanting to punish a company rather than trying to get them to change their policy in a more civil manner though.

I am however flummoxed that this description would be used in court.

same. I want someone to say in what way is it functional?

Let's hear the misogyny.

Just want to edit this a bit:

That 'fully functioning vagina' description is a bit of an aha moment for me. For men the consequence of being a sex is status and the role of reproductive organs is limited to the act of sex, therefore this man can't see further than ego affirmation and the act of sex.

(Perhaps there is an argument for having different words for 'sex' and 'sex'...)

Oh yes, some have even admitted that their definition of a 'woman' is essentially 'someone who is fucked'. The "dead eyes, open mouth and expectant arsehole" or the penetrated rather than the penetrator, if you prefer.

If he slaps a pair of dentures in there would that make it a fully-functional mouth?

Well yes, that's probably the main reason 'gender' started to be used as a euphemism for sex in the first place.

Even the act part though...surely anyone who thinks a skin-lined tube is a 'fully functioning vagina' obviously hasn't had any experience from either perspective of a female orgasm?

If he slaps a pair of dentures in there would that make it a fully-functional mouth?

Probably, same logic isn't it! not envy

Too much!! Brain exploded!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780622/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_7_nm_1_in_0_q_teeth