Our organisation has just published its response to the Supreme Court ruling

[PoisonCrystal]

It’s an Arms Length Body and it’s the usual carefully worded sitting-on-the-fence waffle, including needing to wait for the statutory guidance from the EHRC. I do wonder about my colleagues, though. In the comments was the following gem:

“Do we know how the court is defining ‘biological sex’? Genetically? Chromosomally? Hormonally? Aesthetically?”

Does someone now need to get a court ruling on the definition of sex? Then what? A definition of “human”?

Aesthetical biology. That's new to me.

What is the meaning of life?'

'Well, it depends on how you define 'the'.'🙄

“Do we know how the court is defining ‘biological sex’? Genetically? Chromosomally? Hormonally? Aesthetically?”

Comment back: I know. It's like when you have to decide if someone is being disingenuous or just plain stupid.

It was defined as sex at birth (i.e. on their original birth certificate) in section 7 of the SC ruling.

Everyone knows what their own original birth certificate says, so there can be no excuse.

“Do we know how the court is defining ‘biological sex’? Genetically? Chromosomally? Hormonally? Aesthetically?”

If you really want to raise your head above the parapet and answer that, then the SC cited a case from 1970 called Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley).

A man had married a post-op transwoman in 1963. They then split up 14 days later.

The transwoman claimed for maintenance but the man sought an annulment of the marriage (ie saying that the marriage had never happened) because, at that time, a marriage must be between a man and a woman.

The court ruled that the transwoman was a man and that sex at birth cannot be changed.

The court went on to say that determining sex was down to just three things:

(i) Chromosomal factors.
(ii) Gonadal factors (ie presence or absence of testes or ovaries).
(iii) Genital factors (including internal sex organs).

and nothing else, so not hormonal factors or psychological factors.

This case has been cited with approval on a number of occasions over the last 50 years. It is pretty much well accepted.

This is why the SC said at para 171:

"Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation."

If they come back with “well, what about intersex people, hmm?”, you could tell them that intersex is widely considered to be an outdated and offensive term to describe the people they are talking about, and then show them the NHS guidance on DSDs, which confirms that even people with DSDs have a sex listed on their birth certificates.

I’m not planning on commenting back as I’m expecting the discussion to disappear soon. Another commenter has replied agreeing that it’s not a solid basis for human rights legislation because of “rights based on original birth certificates or ‘masculine appearance or attributes’ “ which helps explain the use of “Aesthetically” earlier. It seems it’s just another way of saying assigned at birth. But apparently it’s also “vibes-based in the present”: a really helpful guide indeed!

@Another2Cats The transwoman claimed for maintenance but the man sought an annulment of the marriage (ie saying that the marriage had never happened) because, at that time, a marriage must be between a man and a woman.

Do you know if the man was unaware he was marrying a trans identified male at the time? Was this the reason for the annulment or was be just using this to get out of the marriage? How were they even able to marry at the time? Didn't you have to provide ID?

I guess the next time someone refers to you as a cis woman you can ask if that is based on your genetic, hormonal or aesthetic sex.

Arthur Corbett knew that April Ashley was male. He met him in a sex club in Paris that catered to men who had a specific sexual interest in cross dressing and transition. Corbett himself was a cross dresser.

The marriage took place abroad, not in the UK. The 'divorce' was after they returned, when Corbett's legal firm figured out that no divorce was needed.

@GreenFriedTomato FWIW, Corbett's main aim seems to have been to get out of paying Ashley any money - Corbett came from a v wealthy family and had an inherited title.

Thanks for the info @bubblerabbit It sounds familiar now wrt Paris and Sex club

Yes, I think we are going to have to have a court case to definitively fix what 'sex' means in law. That will probably have to go through to the SC too. And then probably whether full stops in legal documents in some way mean women's rights can be disposed of. Or whether women can be said to have souls. Or whether we all exist at all and what 'exist' can actually mean once Judith Butler's been allowed to twaddle on about it.

The addled with far too much time on their hands will never cease to bore us all to death otherwise.

@GreenFriedTomato I'm fairly sure I read it on the wiki a while ago, but it has been removed from the page. All in all pretty scummy behaviour from Corbett. It's interesting that Ashley went after the law change to make him legally female rather than having same sex marriage recognised in law - the quiet part of this isn't that Corbett thought Ashley was a woman just like any other woman, but that the interest was specifically because Ashley was a 'woman' made from a man.

This is the next inevitable argument for the transwomen who have gone down the medical path.

GRC doesn’t change my legal sex, it is down to biology? Aha! Well then because I take shit tonnes of female hormones and have maybe had a boob job and therefore BIOLOGICALLY I am female! hormonally and aesthetically I am female and Nobody has ever tested my chromosomes! (even though you used to be called Barry and have two children created from your sperm before your AGP got out in public)

And that other old chestnut, well some women have hysterectomies!

FWIW any man who describes himself as a woman but who has fathered a son has a Y chromosome. He couldn't have produced a son otherwise.

'We are defining it in precisely the same way we did for literally thousands of years, and which everyone found intuitive, simple and inarguable until some men decided it made them sad, at which point it all became terribly complicated.'

Twats.

It hadn't really occurred to me that this is where do-gooder opinion might take this – that the SC decision still isn't clear, we don't know what all these other words mean, we'll have to await further expert guidance (maybe Stonewall can write it?)

If this is really where the issue is going to go, then there's no easy way out of it. It's like living through the Book of Judges: "in those days, Israel had no king and everyone did what was right in their own eyes".

Surgical procedures and medical interventions are specifically excluded from consideration when deciding what sex someone is, thank goodness.

So they'd be on a hiding to nothing.

FWIW any man who describes himself as a woman but who has fathered a son has a Y chromosome. He couldn't have produced a son otherwise.

Also known as Willoughby's Law.

Isn’t the clue in the word “biological”?

"...if the man was unaware he was marrying a trans identified male"

It all gets very complicated but, basically, yes, Arthur Corbett was very aware.

The transwoman was born George Jamieson in Liverpool. At the age of 17 he started taking oestrogen while working as a female impersonator at a night club in France. Then, at the age of 20, he travelled to Casablanca in Morocco where a French doctor performed an operation to remove his genitals.

Following that operation, George, by now calling himself April Ashley, moved to London where he met Arthur Corbett about six months later.

Arthur himself was a bit unusual. He was a married man who was into cross-dressing as a woman and appears to have been bisexual. Arthur was aware at that time that April was a transwoman and that was actually the main reason why Arthur wanted to meet April.

They then had an entirely non-sexual affair for three years until after Arthur's wife got a divorce.

During this time, April became the subject of a series of articles in the News of the World which outed her to the whole UK.

Arthur had bought a villa in Marbella, Spain where April spent time while Arthur lived elsewhere in Marbella.
.

"How were they even able to marry at the time? Didn't you have to provide ID?"

While they were in Marbella they approached a lawyer in Gibraltar. This lawyer arranged a special licence for them. It is unknown whether they had any legal advice as to the validity of the marriage or how it was arranged.
.

"Was this the reason for the annulment or was be just using this to get out of the marriage?"

He was looking to get out of the marriage.

They got married on 10th Sept 1963. They attempted to have sex for the first time that night but April declined to continue stating that April was in pain. After this they spent a few days sleeping apart in different houses until April returned to London.

Arthur later followed April back to London and they spent about a week there in a flat together. There was disagreement between the parties as to what happened there and whether the marriage was ever actually consummated.

Arthur then returned to Marbella and April later followed him there. They spent about three days together in Marbella until April left for good and that was the end of their relationship.
.

Following on from this, April claimed that Arthur had promised to give the villa in Marbella to April and April also commenced a claim for maintenance under the then Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which has since been replaced by newer Acts).

Arthur then counter-claimed asking that the marriage be annulled.

"He met him in a sex club in Paris"

Just a small point, but they met for the first time at Le Caprice restaurant in London on 19 November 1960

We have reached a point where either the govt and EHRC are going to have to force compliance with the law, or admit that law is on paper and in practice is whatever current fashionable/noisy lobby group can market. Currently it's GI, but the next lobby group could be Russian/extremist right wing/whatever. And there'll be no point whining about it.

It has been pointed out over and over to the GI lobby: the whole point of the laws and values set up at the end of WW2 was that equality for all is the key and law is for everyone. Even the people you hate. It's a standard thing everyone is entitled to. Once you get into the most powerful group can just push around or remove rights and protections from anyone they don't like or find inconvenient then no one has any protection at all: you're all in the hands of the most currently powerful group and you have nothing but hope that your own group is currently one of their mates. Sooner or later it won't be, and you'll be on the recieving end of what you were happily dishing out to others. With no recourse and no protections because you broke them.

Yes, I suspect we're in for years of whining, whingeing, wiggling around, any excuse to kick it in to the long grass and 'wait' for something else. And we can wonder why we pay MPs and the HoC so very much money to write laws that aren't actually meaningful or enforced, and what the point of them is. Or the point of going through the performance of voting.

This is one part of the picture that is looking increasingly likely to end in Reform getting into power.

@Another2Cats thanks for all that.
I'm surprised it hasn't been made into a film or a tv drama. Paris, London, Marbella, Casablanca. Sex clubs, cross dressing castration. Court, Divorce
It's quite a story