Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

The Goodwin judgement said nothing of the sort. It acknowledged that doctors accept gender incongruance as a condition and that in effect credit should be given for undertaking genital removal surgery. They made no finding that gender identity is real other than using the term 'the gender they perceive they belong'.

The judgement is online.

I know it's on-line, the link had already been posted. Brainless wasp!

From the Goodwin text I posted, see the bold bits idiot ...

100. It is true that the first sentence refers in express terms to the right of a man and woman to marry. The Court is not persuaded that at the date of this case it can still be assumed that these terms must refer to a determination of gender by purely biological criteria (as held by Ormrod J. in the case of Corbett v. Corbett, paragraph 21 above). There have been major social changes in the institution of marriage since the adoption of the Convention as well as dramatic changes brought about by developments in medicine and science in the field of transsexuality. The Court has found above, under Article 8 of the Convention, that a test of congruent biological factors can no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual. There are other important factors – the acceptance of the condition of gender identity disorder by the medical professions and health authorities within Contracting States, the provision of treatment including surgery to assimilate the individual as closely as possible to the gender in which they perceive that they properly belong and the assumption by the transsexual of the social role of the assigned gender. The Court would also note that Article 9 of the recently adopted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union departs, no doubt deliberately, from the wording of Article 12 of the Convention in removing the reference to men and women (see paragraph 58 above).



Get it? They were not persuaded that biological criteria is sufficient to determine a persons's sex. They were inclined instead to consider social changes and other developments in medicine etc.

This after you blathering on endlessly about only biological sex matters, nothing else. Then after IanH posts stuff related to social development you seize on that and take a false reading (as usual).

You really do know how to embarrass yourself. However I've no doubt you'll return with more inventions either of your own or parroting the feminazi.

Let's face it, N dismantled your arguments with ease the other day.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The trouble with creating a sock puppet is you have to keep it going. The bigger it gets the harder it is to sustain. But you can't drop it altogether because that looks suspicious.
The fictional Niece could get their own account and not be limited to posting at weekends once a month under 'Monkers'. But then you'd have 2 accounts to maintain and that's a lot of logging on and off and you'd risk more slips.

The arguments stand or fall on their own merits and I don't actually care who makes them, sock puppet or not. I'm not going to further the pretence that what you present on here is real though.

Get it? They were not persuaded that biological criteria is sufficient to determine a persons's sex. They were inclined instead to consider social changes and other developments in medicine etc.

Goodwin was specifically about NI numbers, pension rights, marriage, paperwork. It had nothing to say about whether a person's sex was changed, only that it wasn't unreasonable for Goodwin to have the benefits of changing documentation to "the gender in which they perceive that they properly belong".

This after you blathering on endlessly about only biological sex matters, nothing else. Then after IanH posts stuff related to social development you seize on that and take a false reading (as usual). You really do know how to embarrass yourself. However I've no doubt you'll return with more inventions either of your own or parroting the feminazi.

I see we're well on the way to another public unravelling. If you can't cope with people disagreeing with you, you might consider whether the Internet is the place for you.

 

[monkers]

Goodwin was specifically about NI numbers, pension rights, marriage, paperwork. It had nothing to say about whether a person's sex was changed, only that it wasn't unreasonable for Goodwin to have the benefits of changing documentation to "the gender in which they perceive that they properly belong".

Yes it was Ormrod I was talking about the other day. The 'common understanding' you were talking about comes from what was put in place in 1971 by Roger Ormrod and became common law. This one man, one judge, made that common law in relation to a divorce case, namely that of April Ashley. But it's been in the bin for a long time. Convention rights trump common law when they are in conflict.

You say you are not a religious person, but your argument is based on biblical moral; ie, fiction and cemented by one judge in 1971.

Essentially Goodwin had two strands, privacy and the right to marry.

 

[monkers]

. It had nothing to say about whether a person's sex was changed

Oh for fark's sake. Every man and his dog knows that the case contributed to the directive imposed on the Blair government to produce domestic law. The convention rights were already established, and guaranteed by the UK Human Rights Act.

Interesting to note, that Tony Blair in his youth was notorious as a cock-loving transvestite called Miranda while at university. He was fined for cottaging whilst being Miranda in London. While in office he tried to resist these convention rights, and even recently was trying to tell Starmer that penis and vagina are the only things that determine sex. But then he wasn't too concerned with convention rights, when he decided on killing sprees abroad either.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that the judgement (17 judges no less...) 'determined the opposite' ie that gender identity exists. It didn't. Neither did it determine that Goodwin's sex had changed.

As to your Tony Blair anecdote, it provides an excellent argument for excluding men from women's spaces. Thanks.

 

[monkers]

The trouble with creating a sock puppet is you have to keep it going. The bigger it gets the harder it is to sustain. But you can't drop it altogether because that looks suspicious.
The fictional Niece could get their own account and not be limited to posting at weekends once a month under 'Monkers'. But then you'd have 2 accounts to maintain and that's a lot of logging on and off and you'd risk more slips.

The arguments stand or fall on their own merits and I don't actually care who makes them, sock puppet or not. I'm not going to further the pretence that what you present on here is real though.


Goodwin was specifically about NI numbers, pension rights, marriage, paperwork. It had nothing to say about whether a person's sex was changed, only that it wasn't unreasonable for Goodwin to have the benefits of changing documentation to "the gender in which they perceive that they properly belong".




I see we're well on the way to another public unravelling. If you can't cope with people disagreeing with you, you might consider whether the Internet is the place for you.

From reading previous comments of other posters; it's you that stands out as being identified as the liar.

I'm happy to disagree with opinion. I'm not happy to accept lies as facts. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts (when they are lies).

 

[monkers]

As to your Tony Blair anecdote, it provides an excellent argument for excluding men from women's spaces. Thanks.

He was in a men's toilet, give me strength, and fined for importuning men. Apparently nobody minded the Miranda persona, but hoped he wouldn't play his guitar because he was terrible.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Those sort of activities are rare between women in single sex facilities (judging by news reports of court cases), but much more common between men in theirs. I've never heard anyone talk about certain Women's toilets as notorious cottaging sites in the way they talk about Men's ones.

According to you though, Tony should have access to women's facilities if he says he's a woman and/or dresses as one - allowing such men to indulge themselves in the Women's as well as the Men's.

Your weird little Blair anecdote probably sounded cool in your head but it's really just more evidence why women need single sex spaces. Once again, thanks. Every little helps.

 

[matticus]

The bigger it gets the harder it is to sustain.

oooh, Matron!!!

 

[monkers]

Those sort of activities are rare between women in single sex facilities (judging by news reports of court cases), but much more common between men in theirs. I've never heard anyone talk about certain Women's toilets as notorious cottaging sites in the way they talk about Men's ones.

According to you though, Tony should have access to women's facilities if he says he's a woman and/or dresses as one - allowing such men to indulge themselves in the Women's as well as the Men's.

Your weird little Blair anecdote probably sounded cool in your head but it's really just more evidence why women need single sex spaces. Once again, thanks. Every little helps.

You are so weird.

I've never said that a chap can just put on a frock and visit the ladies. Your imagination is lurid, and your lies about who I am or what I have previously said are plain extraordinary.

Tony Blair's antics would not have been permissible under convention rights or domestic law.

 

[AuroraSaab]

oooh, Matron!!!

Lol. I love, love, love Kenneth Williams. He was so much more than the Carry On films. I was quite sad when I read Joe Orton's diaries and realised what a lonely life he led, even when he was popular and feted. I wished he had lived longer, I think he would have had an interesting later career. Probably ended up Dr Who or Game of Thrones or something. I wish he'd known how fond of him people were.

 

[matticus]

Lol. I love, love, love Kenneth Williams. He was so much more than the Carry On films. I was quite sad when I read Joe Orton's diaries and realised what a lonely life he led, even when he was popular and feted. I wished he had lived longer, I think he would have had an interesting later career. Probably ended up Dr Who or Game of Thrones or something. I wish he'd known how fond of him people were.

At the same time, I do think he pushed the spirit of the rules to the limit on Just a Minute

 

[Ian H]

At the same time, I do think he pushed the spirit of the rules to the limit on Just a Minute

Rules are made to be bent broken.

 

[AuroraSaab]

At the same time, I do think he pushed the spirit of the rules to the limit on Just a Minute

Surely not.

I can still laugh out loud at him singing Crepe Suzette or the Julian and Sandy sketches.

Barbara Windsor used to tell a funny story about her honeymoon. Kenneth was invited, or sort of invited himself, but much to her surprise he brought his mother and sister as well.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The trouble with creating a sock puppet is you have to keep it going. The bigger it gets the harder it is to sustain. But you can't drop it altogether because that looks suspicious.
The fictional Niece could get their own account and not be limited to posting at weekends once a month under 'Monkers'. But then you'd have 2 accounts to maintain and that's a lot of logging on and off and you'd risk more slips.

The arguments stand or fall on their own merits and I don't actually care who makes them, sock puppet or not. I'm not going to further the pretence that what you present on here is real though.

FFS why would @monkers do that.

Why can't we just take people at face value?