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.

All dogs have 4 legs therefore anything that has 4 legs is a dog = TRA logic.

@BonfireLady

The additional surge in testosterone that males get during puberty is enough to allow the penis to grow....

This is not strictly correct. Even after puberty (without medical intervention), the external genitalia have an appearance that can range from completely female to that of an undervirilised male.

The interpretation is far from being accepted as legislation or been tested under law to establish precedence.

Is this the precedence that you would like of one protected characteristic (gender reassignment) over another (sex), or were you trying to talk about legal precedents? It's a legal mind field indeed.

And if a dog loses a leg in some sad accident it is no longer a “proper” dog, poor thing 🙁

It is, yet again, clear evidence that what trans people understand by "man" and "woman" and drives their self identification as such is nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of these words to the rest of the population nor how those the rest of the population live their lives as women or men.

We should stop playing this ridiculous game and simply insist on new lanuage to recognise those personal attributes trans people are currently incorrectly insisting are "women" and "men".

Then they can have the GRCs in the world to recognise their special natures without debasing the language that should unproblematically refer to the real and undeniable existence of sex.

And dumb-clever idiots who think pretending they don't understand what words like "woman" or "biological sex" could ever even mean becasue it's all too complicated can get on with explaining why they shouldn't get a traffic violation for jumping a red light because traffic lights are actually impossible because colour is a spectrum.

I heard a similar story about a maternity ward getting into a spin because they had a transman with pregnancy problems and all their forms etc assumed that mothers would be female.

I'm usually fairly Live and let live about trans issues, but it does seem to me that if you claim to have been born in the wrong body and to be really a man, you cannot expect accommodations if you then decide to do something that quintessentially only women can do. I felt that that hospital should own its forms and ignore any fuss about them, and I equally feel that this should rule out a GRC. If you claim to have the wrong body then logically you do not want a uterus, and the thought of carrying a child and giving birth should be alien to you.

The more this guy attempts to argue that
a) we can't distinguish between the two sexes using sex but also that
b) there are behaviours that correlate with two things we know as 'male' or female' (but these aren't sex, because we can't differentiate between the sexes) and we apparently see these as a bimodal distribution the more obvious it is he's on the wind-up.

If there aren't two sexes then none of this is relevant. Behaviours can't be attributed to a sex because you can't tell the sexes apart, changing behaviour or appearance to one that 'is associated with' a sex can't happen because you can't tell the sexes apart. It's just a very very moronic argument that this poster keeps trying to repeat in different ways.

Going back to the OP - does anyone have any information about my earlier question?
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?

The interpretation is far from being accepted as legislation or been tested under law to establish precedence.

It's such a job to know who to believe, Michael Foran, the Supreme Court, an anonymous poster on the internet...

We should stop playing this ridiculous game and simply insist on new lanuage to recognise those personal attributes trans people are currently incorrectly insisting are "women" and "men".

I'd be happy with that. It's what I've tried to glean from various posters over the years, and my conclusions is they're all using these words to mean something different and also the words don't actually have a meaning. It's like when racist people say about POC 'you know the kind of people I'm talking about'. They can't outright name any aspect of the way they classify things because it would look astoundingly sexist.

And dumb-clever idiots who think pretending they don't understand what words like "woman" or "biological sex" could ever even mean becasue it's all too complicated can get on with explaining why they shouldn't get a traffic violation for jumping a red light because traffic lights are actually impossible because colour is a spectrum.

Exactly. They are very close to 'freemen of the land' in my view.

@potpourree

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?

There doesn't appear to be, in that the diagnosis and the commitment to living in the acquired gender are discrete conditions of issuance of the GRC.

The government website suggests change of name and sex marker on identity documents as the only example of how to meet the "living in" criterion. They would be ridiculed if they started suggesting dressing in pink or doing a bit of spot-welding.

The diagnosis does factor in the adoption of cross-sex cultural sex norms, but not, I think, as proof of gender identity (how could it be? They're optional, and, at most, bimodal, not binary, between the sexes).

It's relevant as a signifier of how motivated the patient is to be accepted as the opposite sex. And a willingness to adopt cultural norms that will expose the patient to punishment, danger, or ridicule is likely to be taken as evidence of the strength of dysphoria and not of the presence of a humiliation fetish oh no siree.

The genitalia will never be "completely female" because someone with 46 XY 5-ARD (correcting my typo above where I said 45) is a male.

Yes, it's possible that it may still resemble female genitalia but, as I understand it from previous DSD discussions, it's far more likely for the penis to visibly grow during puberty. Obviously other things will happen too consistent with male puberty, such as body hair growth (albeit less than other males), a lower voice etc.

In one part of the world which has a notable cohort of boys with the same condition as Semenya, and as other notable males who have previously competed in women's sports, these children are known as the Guevedoces. This translates roughly to "penis at 12".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981

And back on the subject of the thread... (I apologise OP for my contribution to the derail, but I wanted to help head off the DSD and grammar nonsense)...

The weird derailing that is clearly visible here on the thread is an excellent example of why it's so important to have a common understanding of English words. To do anything else is potentially harmful to vulnerable children and adults, if they become confused about what's fact and what's belief.

As other PPs have said the female involved in this case has been significantly let down by so many people to the point where it's now impossible to cut through the quagmire to the basic fact: if you are able to give birth, you are female regardless of any belief that you may hold that you're a man. Having a certificate that validates your belief as somehow real is ridiculously irresponsible at best.

If you are planning to get pregnant and can't be at peace with the fact that you're a female, you've got a significant mental health issue that may lead you to harm yourself (and potentially your future unborn child) permanently. No female can safely take synthetic testosterone in doses that are large enough to create a mimicry of male secondary sex characteristics like lower voices and facial hair growth: there is already enough evidence that shows the life-impacting and life-limiting effects of doing this. We're yet to see what happens at scale to children whose mothers were taking testosterone prior to conception and perhaps in the early stages of fetal development before they realised they were pregnant.

Legally, in the UK, a person’s sex is entirely determined by their chromosomes, gonads and genitalia, where those three things are congruent, which they are in the vast majority of cases. In rare cases where they’re not, a determination will be made by the court after hearing expert evidence on those three things.

This was established in Corbett, and reaffirmed at various times since. I don’t understand why anyone thinks there is any doubt about that.

The outcome of the determination, whether straightforward (in the vast majority of cases) or occasionally difficult, is what is recorded on a birth certificate.

What some biologists, doctors, or anyone else has to say or not say simply isn’t relevant in law.

if at some time a case goes to the Supreme Court which substitutes an new way to determine a persons sex then that will override the Court of Appeal in Corbett. Fairly obviously a great opportunity to do so, if it were ever going to happen, would have been FWS, and that didn’t happen.

“Biological sex” wasn’t clarified in FWS because every judicial mind applied to the question already knows what it means. Which is what I said.

Agreed💯

Well said. This whole thing is a massive social and medical experiment being carried out on children and young people at the behest of certain adults with the worst motives in the world.

I'm so over having to tiptoe around while these men (and women) trample over the rights of the young to develop to maturity in safety. These toxic individuals / organisations reframe the normal physical and emotional challenges of puberty and adolescence into something that can be "cured" with these dangerous regimes of drugs and surgery.

As this case highlights - there are no good outcomes for children and young people caught up in this. Until these people are prised away from influencing education, safeguarding and health care for children, all children remain at risk.

There doesn't appear to be, in that the diagnosis and the commitment to living in the acquired gender are discrete conditions of issuance of the GRC.
The government website suggests change of name and sex marker on identity documents as the only example of how to meet the "living in" criterion. They would be ridiculed if they started suggesting dressing in pink or doing a bit of spot-welding.

Yes actually a lot of the recent self-id movement was a reaction to feeling that the gender dysphoria diagnosis "medicalises" the trangender person or experience. Which I guess I can understand as "diagnostic criteria" suggests there is some sort of treatment required (you'd think that changing your inner gender identity, which is not your sex, would not reuqire any physical treatment anyway? ) but still we would expect some kind of definition if it's a legal requirement to do a thing.

May I just re rail the thread by asking
WHY
are NHS resources being used to

• give the deluded woman a double mastectomy
• give the woman affirmative therapy contrary to CASS
• give the woman IVF
• agree that the woman will be given c-sections if she carries to term

and will likely pay to look after any living child when it is taken into care as the mother is unstable and ill

The only person using the words "femininity" and "feminine" is you. The rest of us said "female". Do you think that maternity wards are decked out in pink ribbons and bouquets of roses? That the staff are in twinsets and pearls and high heels and skirts? You are lying about what people have said again.

Childbirth is not a stereotypical "feminine" behaviour but is a possible consequence of being female. No male can ever do it. The end.

It's almost like our resident community disruptor doesn't want us to look at this...

Why would we assume that the IVF is paid for by the NHS?

I'm aware of the Guevedoces, but I don't know what the %s are for different outcomes overall, and thus what is 'more likely' (plus, some will have medical interventions to push things one way or the other). I just don't want to spread the idea that Semenya and Khelif are hiding male genitals, because that won't be the case. Most likely the scouts pick individuals who retain female-seeming genitals, to avoid detection/maintain plausible deniability - Semenya's autobiography describes being subjected to genital examinations.

@Merrymouse because the ruling mentions two sets, one private
implying that the other is NHS

Indeed.

Good question!

They would be ridiculed if they started suggesting dressing in pink or doing a bit of spot-welding.

Next time I do a bit of spot-welding I should dress in pink, if only to watch TRAs fall apart all around.