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.

.

"The argument presented involves several logical fallacies and poor reasoning. Here are the key issues:

1. No True Scotsman Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when someone's qualifications for membership in a group are arbitrarily changed to exclude counterexamples. Initially, the definition provided for a woman is "a person born with XX chromosomes who is of the nature to give birth." When challenged with the example of infertile women, the speaker shifts the criteria subtly by saying that infertility is an exception that "proves the rule." This adjustment conveniently excludes infertile women from undermining the definition, making the argument non-falsifiable and inconsistent.

1. Begging the Question: The argument assumes its conclusion in its premises. The definition provided presupposes the very criteria (chromosomes and ability to give birth) being debated about who qualifies as a woman, especially in discussions about transgender identities. By doing so, the argument circularly defines "woman" without addressing the broader societal and biological complexities, thus failing to engage with the central issue.

1. Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This fallacy involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. The definition of a woman as someone who is "of the nature to give birth" ignores the wide range of biological, medical, and social realities that can affect this ability and does not account for those who do not fit neatly into these categories.

1. Appeal to Nature Fallacy: This argument claims that a woman is "of the nature to give birth" and that implies some natural state or essence of being a woman. This is problematic because it suggests that what is "natural" is inherently correct or better, which does not account for the diversity of human experiences and conditions."

These fallacies combined show a lack of nuanced understanding of gender and biological science, and they undermine the validity of the argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/Q8RgGurD/whatfallacyisthistransphobemaking.html

Yes, words have meanings, or did until the gender ideologues started changing them arbitrarily and causing confusion. It's no good trying this nonsense about sex being a spectrum and nobody knowing what sex they are if they haven't had their chromosomes tested. Nobody here is going to fall for that.

Not a single human being has ever been born from the body of a man, nor ever will be. Women and girls are treated differently - usually worse - because of our reproductive capacity, whether we use it or not.

Oh god, here comes the cut and paste logic thing which I've seen from this poster several times before. No relevance to what's been said, of course. Time for bed.

For the love of God, does no-one have the Interrupteron image to hand?????

I think you must have intended this as a reply to someone else. I merely pointed out that you didn't understand logic, using your error as an example.

Infertile women are this poster's gotcha on nearly every thread

It's despicable

Quite. He’s just a bit sad and desperate for attention.

The Supreme Court clarified that transmen with GRCs still have pregnancy and maternity rights under the Equality Act 2010 same as any other women so it's logical that it works both ways - a woman can try to conceive and still get a GRC as a transman.

If the transman does have a child then she will still be written up as the mother on her baby's birth certificate regardless of her GRC.

Found it!

This does feel really positive (although maybe not so much for the kids).

As others have said, it really underlines the fact that a GRC is about ‘gender’ and not sex so a GRC can’t be used to affect anything to do with sex. Win! 💪🏼

Thanks GLP 🤣

my honest opinion is it’s all attention seeking nonsense!

Words have meaning. And trans identity ideology assigns meaning to words to suit its own obfuscatory purposes.

As you obscure the natural meaning of 'sex' it has become necessary to clarify that natural meaning by prefixing 'sex' with 'biological' to avoid the nonsense that 'sex' could be a social construct. I personally prefer to refer to physical reality. All philosophical worldviews worth taking seriously must be compatible with physical reality. If I promote a philosophy that claims that all humans are capable of unaided flight, it is reasonable for my opponents to challenge me to demonstrate this. Should I then jump naked out of my first floor window, even though my philosophy is not actually compatible with the physical reality of gravity? This might give someone a cheap thrill but it would not enhance my life.

Your second and third paragraphs are sophistry, and do not adequately address the physical reality that we are sexed creatures who depend on a male gamete and a female gamete for every instance of reproduction. The occasional slight difficulty of working out which sex someone is does not impede the physical reality that each of us is either male or female, and that we cannot change our reproductive role from sperm provider to egg provider or from egg provided to sperm provider. The fact that I am no longer able to function as a sperm provider for reproductive purposes does not make me a non-man, or putatively female.

Howseitgoin words are dependent on social usage.

Not entirely - fortunately, because otherwise communication would be a very hit-and-miss affair!

Sometimes it is essential to have an agreed definition of words, and the law is one area where definitions can't be left to the vagaries of social usage -
robbery? breaking and entering? burglary? They all sound pretty much the same, they are all about nicking stuff, but they have precise legal definitions.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that a precise definition of 'man' and 'woman' exists, i.e. the established, scientific, biological definition of human sex as binary and immutable.

It referred directly to the Equality Act, but logic would suggest that wherever the words 'man' or 'woman' appear in legislation, they follow the biological definition, rather than social usage based on a recent, irrational, passing fad that made them interchangeable.

These threads aren't your personal lamppost to piss all over.

"Interrupteron" = 'anyone that won't agree with me!'

No, it's for you. That you don't understand that it's for you is why you you have come to fallacious conclusion you have.

I don't know for sure whether your logic is faulty, or your sophistry is well practised, but it certainly looks like the latter.

"I personally prefer to refer to physical reality. All philosophical worldviews worth taking seriously must be compatible with physical reality."

As in the physical reality that men & women have on average group differences in behaviour like the one (violence) which is proposed to be the reason men aren't 'qualified' to use the ladies? Or the physical reality of massive differences in employment, consumerist, special interests & life choices of men & women? Or maybe the one where we usually use surface not biology to differentiate men from women in our social interactions?

"Your second and third paragraphs are sophistry, and do not adequately address the physical reality that we are sexed creatures who depend on a male gamete and a female gamete for every instance of reproduction. "

Non sequitur. It does not follow that the necessity of reproductive differences is necessary to distinguish males from females.

1. The SC never defined what 'biological' meant that the science community immediately repudiated given its complexity.
2. The decision was made concerning the intention of the word at the time the EA was implemented which according to many legal experts may well come into conflict with other laws.
3. The interpretation is far from being accepted as legislation or been tested under law to establish precedence.

There's a reason why other countries aren't silly enough to go down this legal mind field because the law is more complicated that you think.

It's a "mind field" for sure, particularly if you're convinced that guessing someone's sex based on their clothes or whether they "are caring" is a more reliable indication of sex than actual sex

I wonder if the gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria - the bits about what toys you like etc - underlies any of the legal intention behind the concept of "living as a gender"? Is there any crossover/reference between the two?

If the GRA is repealed then the Government will need to come up with an alternative way to respect the rights to a family life of trans identifying people (as per Grainger) and we will default back to the judge-made rules extant prior where employers were obliged to let them use the toilets of their "lived gender" once they pass adequately.

The GRA, with its limited provisions for trans identifying people to be recognized as they desire for some, limited, purposes, is actually a valuable bulwark.

The SC didn't and doesn't need to define what "biological sex" means in law because it is well and widely understood through legal precedents. What scientists think is in fact irrelevant to the legal process, although as an aside I don't think the scientific community is nearly as confused about the matter as you think (and wish) them to be.

I don't understand how a change of name by deed poll could be used as "evidence of living in an acquired gender". I could change my name to Neil but I'd still be female - just as Lionel Shriver is a woman despite having a name that is most commonly used for men. Names are just names - they don't prove anything and they don't even come with sex markers as passports do. (And that's before you get into the fact that many TM chose names that are not commonly used by either sex - e.g. Phoenix, Avery, Quinn, etc - rather than Graham, Douglas or Barry.)

The SC didn't and doesn't need to define what "biological sex" means in law because it is well and widely understood through legal precedents.

What precedents?

"as an aside I don't think the scientific community is nearly as confused about the matter as you think (and wish) them to be."

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vRXXLr0Nf8OvUg0idwnX3zJJeB-Bz9u_2fBYZyJQF6RkXrk9YXqPO6bFxfNLo8SkPO-53c0ufv0HqV1/pub?pli=1