High Court rules that a trans man......

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

...... cannot be denied a gender recognition certificate because he is trying to conceive, in an important win supported by Good Law Project.

https://goodlawproject.org/win-victory-in-landmark-case-on-gender-recognition/

Apologies for the source, but it's currently the only free one.

Not the Equality Act, the Gender Recognition Act.

It's like a Christian obtaining a certificate which says "I am a child of god".

Okey dokes. Good for you. I appreciate that the analogy above is hypothetical but the GRC has just as much impact in law as this would do.

Yes, Tebbit's opposition was to the GRA. But in the end, it was the Equality Act that imploded (from TRAs' POV).

I agree the GRA should be repealed. No law should be passed to allow people to falsify official documents, nor to require people to pretend they believe a lie.

The whole thing is a lie, so I shouldn't be surprised when those involved add more lies, but stating that you intend to live as a man while actively planning to get pregnant shows an absolute lack of any honesty.

Every case like this shines some more much-needed sunlight.

Idk…the recent Supreme Court ruling clarified that ‘gender’ isn’t the same thing as sex, and that ‘single sex’ means the latter
so what in practice does a ‘gender recognition certificate’ mean? A bit more of a right to insist on other people using your ‘preferred pronouns’ than someone without one?

That makes sense - but if a GRC can be granted to somebody who then goes on to give birth or father a child, it does rather undermine the idea that the goal of a GRC is to protect Article 8 rights to privacy and hide trans status and sex.

FFS.

WHY is it so important to own the specific word "woman", or in this case "man", if you want it to mean something that has no connection whatsoever to the previous meanings of those words?

Why the fuck are we allowing a small group of people with very disordered and frankly sexist beliefs about what it means to be a man or a woman determine what those words can mean for humanity as a whole?

I agree the GRA should be repealed. No law should be passed to allow people to falsify official documents, nor to require people to pretend they believe a lie.

Indeed. Now that the Supreme Court has clarified that sex is immutable and biological, it makes zero sense that anyone can change their birth certificate to validate their belief. We may as well be letting people change their birth year too if they feel much younger or older than their "biological age".

Looking on the bright side, this is one more step towards repeal of the GRA.

By this logic women who can't or won't have children are 'men'.

It works both ways…

Oh fuck off with that bollocks. I'm infertile because my female biology doesn't work not because I'm a man you absolute clown

dont you dare weaponise female infertility to support your delusion that men can become women

According to the above fellow GC infertility isn't doing female 'things':

"I don’t understand how a legal declaration that you’re going to live as a man is remotely compatible with using your body to do the most female thing possible."

The judge was put in an impossible position as the GRA tribunal contradicted itself and did not attend the hearing
but
the detailed wording shows the truth

and it is desperately sad for that woman
and any child she manages to have

I know that it isn't quite Panto Season but:

Oh no it doesn't.

The absolute barefaced cheek to respond in such a way to that poster.

You should be so ashamed of yourself. You are contemptible.

👏👏👏

Um, I'm not the one saying it nor do I agree with it. It's most of the responses on this thread that are.

And yes it is shameful & contemptible.

what is intended by the phrase living “in the acquired gender”? . The starting point in statutory interpretation is always to give the words of the statute their ordinary and natural meaning. In this case, however, I find this principle has limited, if any, scope. p27

Please let's go back to giving words their ordinary and natural meaning!

The judge is suggesting that if he gave the words male, female, woman, man, gender, sex their 'ordinary and natural meaning' in this case, the ruling might be different.
He says that the ordinary and natural meanings of these words are ' limiting', implying that in order to arrive at his ruling, he had to shake off the shackles of ordinary and natural meanings of words like male, female, woman, man, and use extra-ordinary and un-natural meanings instead.

And yet -
It is not the role of this Court to adjudicate on the meaning of gender or sex, or to seek to redefine the word man, or for that matter, woman. p23.

The more I read it, the more puzzling the judgment appear.

Don't be ridiculous. Biological sex is about reproductive roles. Many humans won't reproduce, because of medical or other circumstances, or by choice. They will still have the body, organs, systems etc of their sex. W has a female body and wants to use it to become pregnant. This is totally at odds with also wanting to be male.

The point I was making, and so were many others, is what does it mean when someone says 'I intend to live as a man/woman for the rest of my life'? The phrase is meaningless. The only thing I have in common with all four billion other women and girls on the planet is being female. The same goes for the four billion men and boys. Nobody can change sex, so nobody is swapping into an opposite sex body. So what can it mean other than 'I intend to swap stereotypes'?

I feel for her intended kids. What’s the betting they don’t get to call anyone ‘mum’?

OK, I'll try and spell this out for the hard of thinking.

Most things that humans do can be done by humans of either sex. There are a few things that can only be done by female humans, and a few things which can only be done by male humans. These are things which involve the reproductive system, which is different in males and females.

One thing that can only be done by female humans is becoming pregnant and giving birth. It's absurd for a female human to claim to be be living as a man if she is pregnant, because men (male humans) cannot become pregnant.

Don’t try and do logic - you’re not very good at it.

I doubt he had much choice. It would have been a real turn up for the books to read the headline "High Court (Family Division) declares entire basis of trans law totally non-existent". A person can dream, though......

Words have meaning.

'Sex' in essence is about distinguishing characteristics between men & women as a group that includes but is not limited by biological sex given in our social lives we distinguish males from females without ever knowing for sure their gametes/chromosomes/secondary sex characteristics. IE we use typical cues that are associated to CIS people like surface presentation.

In terms of biological sex, 'biological' is a vague concept that isn't defined in law & can have various interpretations that not all women might neatly fit into. That you assume your interpretation is the only legitimate one is at best an opinion given words are dependent on social usage.

Oh dear. You really don't understand logic do you?

The statement "only women can give birth to children" is not equivalent to the statement "only people who have given birth to children are women".