Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
monkers
Legendary Member
Aurora thinks she's winning just because she has ground everybody down.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Because we're apparently here and I'm bored, I googled "AuroraSaab", vaguely wondering if there was some kind of link between a Norwegian singer or a celestial apparition and a formerly Swedish car manufacturer.
There isn't.
The first thing which came up was a mumsnet thread, started about this thread.
Indexing is weird and wonderful.
There isn't.
The first thing which came up was a mumsnet thread, started about this thread.
Indexing is weird and wonderful.
monkers
Legendary Member
AuroraSaab
Squire
Posters can go back and read the post on the 15th Dec that says ' Today .. is the 75th anniversary..' if they like.
I'm on Mumsnet?!! Cool. Cheers for the stalking, Andy. I hadn't seen that. I see it's Sam. Hi Sam! Hope the holiday is going ok. I'm not in touch with Sam but I could help him out with his forum game of Guess Who if I wasn't opposed to doxing.
I'm joking though, Andy. Stalk away. It's amazing what pops up in google sometimes; tweets that people thought they'd deleted, links to other forums. A private detective actually offered me a job once lol.
I did notice there's an inactive 2022 AuroraSaab account on X that isn't me. Bit weird as it's an unusual name. Hope it wasn't one of you rascals starting an account with plans to post nasty stuff and claim it was me. I bet it was.
I'm on Mumsnet?!! Cool. Cheers for the stalking, Andy. I hadn't seen that. I see it's Sam. Hi Sam! Hope the holiday is going ok. I'm not in touch with Sam but I could help him out with his forum game of Guess Who if I wasn't opposed to doxing.
I'm joking though, Andy. Stalk away. It's amazing what pops up in google sometimes; tweets that people thought they'd deleted, links to other forums. A private detective actually offered me a job once lol.
I did notice there's an inactive 2022 AuroraSaab account on X that isn't me. Bit weird as it's an unusual name. Hope it wasn't one of you rascals starting an account with plans to post nasty stuff and claim it was me. I bet it was.
monkers
Legendary Member
Yes it's very important that everybody goes back to read that, because according to Aurora, if N made such an enormous mistake, then she can not exist.
If you do read that post, you'll realise that N had just been given the news that I'm not here for long - I'm not, but I've so far lasted a bit longer than predicted that day.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Well the arguments stand on their own merits so I don't really care if you make them via a sock puppet or not. I just won't be joining in with the pretending.
monkers
Legendary Member
Get some help. If you think you brought evidence that others asked you for, you need it.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
It was hardly stalking. I put your username into Google.
Like I said, I was bored and for whatever reason this is where this thread has led.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
I've a suspicion I may know who cycling Sam is though only via other forums.
monkers
Legendary Member
Received by email this morning:-
Copied via wordpad (I couldn't get it to paragraph properly - it still didn't, so I've had to adjust it) before Aurora starts her investigations alleging all manner of things like non-people not having access to email accounts.
Following a conversation with my aunt last night, I wish to make the following contribution. It is my hope that this will bring some clarification that may be welcomed. I'm aware of the allegation of my pomposity on the thread; I ask that you set that aside from your thoughts, instead maintaining interest in the topic.
As it happens I do not always agree with my aunt, neither do I think her own contributions are always helpful. We do occasionally 'have words' concerning language. However she is always sincere, protective and often overly protective of me. Occasionally I'm accused of being overly protective of her, and so it goes.
On the topic of Baroness Falkner, I am of the opinion that she is indeed a political appointee of Liz Truss. Notwithstanding my personal disapproval of the Baroness, I do not share the misgivings of the guidelines from a legal perspective. I'll build here before final expansion of the point. I'll do my best to use the language of the common person (I know pompous of me).
It is not contested in legal circles that the GRA enacted 2004 recognises the gender identity of a person following a procedure laid down by the state. This remains clear even if the language of the day tended to mention of 'gender' rather than the now preferred 'gender identity'. Neither is it contested that a person who holds a GRC following the formal process becomes the adjacent sex of that gender identity for all purposes. I'll assume that following many thread repeats, that wording is familiar enough. I'll just mention here in passing that the contributions from @Bromptonaut are always on-point in this regard.
The GRA was borne of necessity. The European Court of Human Rights directed the government to ensure compatibility between UK primary legislation of the already adopted Human Rights Act enacted 1998 and convention rights.
This followed a number of complainants seeking effective remedy at the European Court of Human Rights. Other directives had been issued to the government from the European Court of Justice (the internal court of the European Union, not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights (the internal court of the Council of Europe).
The Christine Goodwin case is deemed the most significant since it was not decided as per the usual manner by a sitting judge, or small chamber, but by full counsel; in this case seventeen sitting judges, who by the way, were unanimous in their verdict, save for some detail regarding interest calculation on compensation.
It may also be helpful at this point to identify the legal status of individual pieces of legislation.
The Human Rights Act is a 'hybrid'. These are rare in UK legislation, another example is the Belfast (Good Friday Agreement). That is to say that are part primary legislation (domestic) and part secondary legislation (international).
This fact is demonstrated in the opening wording (again previously copied to the thread by me). It cements international law into the UK by use of primary legislation. The Act (primary) guarantees citizens the protections of (secondary) international law.
The GRA enacted 2004 chronologically follows the HRA, therefore it can not follow that the GRA is not under the guarantee of the HRA. Likewise the Equality Act enacted 2010, the various adjacent public sector duty act series, and The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act enacted 2013 are similarly guaranteed.
Definitions that are contained within an act, be it primary or hybrid, are carried forward to subsequent acts unless such definitions shall be at variance. The EqA need not refresh any definition of 'sex' since this is established by legal precedent. The 'common understanding', that is to say understanding from common law remains relevant unless later redefined by an Act of parliament. Therefore the common understanding of the meaning of sex given by Ormrod is superseded first in part by the HRA and then in full by the GRA. That is to say that the convention was first guaranteed by the HRA, and then determined (although not specified as a legal definition) within the GRA.
Now as far as the EHRC guidelines are concerned, some examination is necessary beyond the approach of my aunt (Monkers) or her critical opponents. To quote ...
Under the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ is understood as binary, being a man or a
woman. For the purposes of the Act, a person’s legal sex is their biological sex
as recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex
by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Note: I need not offer legal opinion here other than to say that I see no ambiguity or opportunity to claim otherwise. The guidelines affirm that for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010 that a trans person with a GRC is the sex that is congruent with the gender identity. Legally a trans woman is a woman under the act, and a trans man is a man. This at least is the evidence of the guidelines issued 2022.
As legal opinion I will say that it is not possible to argue both that the guidelines are lawfully given and that trans people are not protected on the protected characteristic of sex. It must follow that either the guidelines are not lawfully given, or that trans people are not the sex stated on their birth certificate.
Further I will say that I believe the guidelines are lawfully given without needing to comment on their content, since as guidelines they may purport to have legal force, yet feel compelled to remind that they do not. The EHRC can advise parliament and the courts, but can not direct them.
A trans person who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for the purposes of the Act.
Whereas one poster (Aurora) lays claim to what she maintains as fact, notedly that all transgender people are clumped into the one protected characteristic of gender reassignment, she can not be correct. The guidelines do not point to any deviation to that which is already understood from the legislation or any finding of the judiciary made post HRA (which guarantees the convention rights).
The GRA makes clear that a person with a GRC, and therefore with an amended biological marker on their birth certificate is that person before the law. Quote ...
Service providers must meet a number of conditions to lawfully establish a
separate or single-sex service. These conditions are set out under exceptions
relating to sex in the Act.
There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex
service provider can exclude, modify or limit access to their service for trans
people. This is allowed under provisions relating to gender reassignment in the
Act.
I note that you Aurora tend to quote parts of this a great deal. My aunt has previously challenged your reading of it. We can agree she been unsuccessful in changing your mind.
Notwithstanding your right to hold opinions and to express them, I feel compelled to give you my own legal opinion. You are reading the text incorrectly.
As stated here in the guidelines, the text states that provisions relate to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. As made clear in the text that precedes it, people with a GRC have the protected characteristic of sex.
A person without a GRC but undergoing gender reassignment is protected by that characteristic, but not the characteristic of sex (how could they be?)
A person who has a GRC is protected under both clauses. Such a person is protected from discrimination if they are discriminated against on the basis of their sex. Also such a person is protected from discrimination if they are discriminated against on the basis of their gender reassignment.
Lastly Aurora, I agree my wording relating to the date of the 75th anniversary could have been clearer. I do not accept that it means that I can not possibly be a lawyer, or that this evidence that I am the product of another person's imagination.
I admit that I may not have read every post in the thread, let alone in the forum, but what I can say is that these sustained attacks on the identity of posters here read to me to be quite ridiculous.
In this thread alone Monkers has been told that it can not be believed that she is a woman, that can not be a lesbian woman, that she must be a trans woman, that she got a GRC on the back of a fag packet (homophobia noted from fag = faggot = gay man). Also that she must be a trans activist. Similarly I am told that I do not exist as a niece or as a lawyer.
To the people concerned I will say to you that you can not stand up your arguments without recourse to such slights, you are possibly not best-placed to claim victimhood from slights such as 'idiot' which come your way in response.
I'm faintly amused by the 'hot shot lawyer' remarks along with my 'meteoric rise' along my career. Maybe you could please write my references for my next job with the big pay rise?
Note: text not proof read - stands on content.
Extra note: I'm required in London again on Monday, therefore at Monkers this coming weekend.
Copied via wordpad (I couldn't get it to paragraph properly - it still didn't, so I've had to adjust it) before Aurora starts her investigations alleging all manner of things like non-people not having access to email accounts.
Following a conversation with my aunt last night, I wish to make the following contribution. It is my hope that this will bring some clarification that may be welcomed. I'm aware of the allegation of my pomposity on the thread; I ask that you set that aside from your thoughts, instead maintaining interest in the topic.
As it happens I do not always agree with my aunt, neither do I think her own contributions are always helpful. We do occasionally 'have words' concerning language. However she is always sincere, protective and often overly protective of me. Occasionally I'm accused of being overly protective of her, and so it goes.
On the topic of Baroness Falkner, I am of the opinion that she is indeed a political appointee of Liz Truss. Notwithstanding my personal disapproval of the Baroness, I do not share the misgivings of the guidelines from a legal perspective. I'll build here before final expansion of the point. I'll do my best to use the language of the common person (I know pompous of me).
It is not contested in legal circles that the GRA enacted 2004 recognises the gender identity of a person following a procedure laid down by the state. This remains clear even if the language of the day tended to mention of 'gender' rather than the now preferred 'gender identity'. Neither is it contested that a person who holds a GRC following the formal process becomes the adjacent sex of that gender identity for all purposes. I'll assume that following many thread repeats, that wording is familiar enough. I'll just mention here in passing that the contributions from @Bromptonaut are always on-point in this regard.
The GRA was borne of necessity. The European Court of Human Rights directed the government to ensure compatibility between UK primary legislation of the already adopted Human Rights Act enacted 1998 and convention rights.
This followed a number of complainants seeking effective remedy at the European Court of Human Rights. Other directives had been issued to the government from the European Court of Justice (the internal court of the European Union, not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights (the internal court of the Council of Europe).
The Christine Goodwin case is deemed the most significant since it was not decided as per the usual manner by a sitting judge, or small chamber, but by full counsel; in this case seventeen sitting judges, who by the way, were unanimous in their verdict, save for some detail regarding interest calculation on compensation.
It may also be helpful at this point to identify the legal status of individual pieces of legislation.
The Human Rights Act is a 'hybrid'. These are rare in UK legislation, another example is the Belfast (Good Friday Agreement). That is to say that are part primary legislation (domestic) and part secondary legislation (international).
This fact is demonstrated in the opening wording (again previously copied to the thread by me). It cements international law into the UK by use of primary legislation. The Act (primary) guarantees citizens the protections of (secondary) international law.
The GRA enacted 2004 chronologically follows the HRA, therefore it can not follow that the GRA is not under the guarantee of the HRA. Likewise the Equality Act enacted 2010, the various adjacent public sector duty act series, and The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act enacted 2013 are similarly guaranteed.
Definitions that are contained within an act, be it primary or hybrid, are carried forward to subsequent acts unless such definitions shall be at variance. The EqA need not refresh any definition of 'sex' since this is established by legal precedent. The 'common understanding', that is to say understanding from common law remains relevant unless later redefined by an Act of parliament. Therefore the common understanding of the meaning of sex given by Ormrod is superseded first in part by the HRA and then in full by the GRA. That is to say that the convention was first guaranteed by the HRA, and then determined (although not specified as a legal definition) within the GRA.
Now as far as the EHRC guidelines are concerned, some examination is necessary beyond the approach of my aunt (Monkers) or her critical opponents. To quote ...
Under the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ is understood as binary, being a man or a
woman. For the purposes of the Act, a person’s legal sex is their biological sex
as recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex
by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Note: I need not offer legal opinion here other than to say that I see no ambiguity or opportunity to claim otherwise. The guidelines affirm that for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010 that a trans person with a GRC is the sex that is congruent with the gender identity. Legally a trans woman is a woman under the act, and a trans man is a man. This at least is the evidence of the guidelines issued 2022.
As legal opinion I will say that it is not possible to argue both that the guidelines are lawfully given and that trans people are not protected on the protected characteristic of sex. It must follow that either the guidelines are not lawfully given, or that trans people are not the sex stated on their birth certificate.
Further I will say that I believe the guidelines are lawfully given without needing to comment on their content, since as guidelines they may purport to have legal force, yet feel compelled to remind that they do not. The EHRC can advise parliament and the courts, but can not direct them.
A trans person who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for the purposes of the Act.
Whereas one poster (Aurora) lays claim to what she maintains as fact, notedly that all transgender people are clumped into the one protected characteristic of gender reassignment, she can not be correct. The guidelines do not point to any deviation to that which is already understood from the legislation or any finding of the judiciary made post HRA (which guarantees the convention rights).
The GRA makes clear that a person with a GRC, and therefore with an amended biological marker on their birth certificate is that person before the law. Quote ...
Service providers must meet a number of conditions to lawfully establish a
separate or single-sex service. These conditions are set out under exceptions
relating to sex in the Act.
There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex
service provider can exclude, modify or limit access to their service for trans
people. This is allowed under provisions relating to gender reassignment in the
Act.
I note that you Aurora tend to quote parts of this a great deal. My aunt has previously challenged your reading of it. We can agree she been unsuccessful in changing your mind.
Notwithstanding your right to hold opinions and to express them, I feel compelled to give you my own legal opinion. You are reading the text incorrectly.
As stated here in the guidelines, the text states that provisions relate to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. As made clear in the text that precedes it, people with a GRC have the protected characteristic of sex.
A person without a GRC but undergoing gender reassignment is protected by that characteristic, but not the characteristic of sex (how could they be?)
A person who has a GRC is protected under both clauses. Such a person is protected from discrimination if they are discriminated against on the basis of their sex. Also such a person is protected from discrimination if they are discriminated against on the basis of their gender reassignment.
Lastly Aurora, I agree my wording relating to the date of the 75th anniversary could have been clearer. I do not accept that it means that I can not possibly be a lawyer, or that this evidence that I am the product of another person's imagination.
I admit that I may not have read every post in the thread, let alone in the forum, but what I can say is that these sustained attacks on the identity of posters here read to me to be quite ridiculous.
In this thread alone Monkers has been told that it can not be believed that she is a woman, that can not be a lesbian woman, that she must be a trans woman, that she got a GRC on the back of a fag packet (homophobia noted from fag = faggot = gay man). Also that she must be a trans activist. Similarly I am told that I do not exist as a niece or as a lawyer.
To the people concerned I will say to you that you can not stand up your arguments without recourse to such slights, you are possibly not best-placed to claim victimhood from slights such as 'idiot' which come your way in response.
I'm faintly amused by the 'hot shot lawyer' remarks along with my 'meteoric rise' along my career. Maybe you could please write my references for my next job with the big pay rise?
Note: text not proof read - stands on content.
Extra note: I'm required in London again on Monday, therefore at Monkers this coming weekend.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
The only link I think of is that the Oldsmobile brand and Saab were bought out by GM. Subsequently both brands failed due to the shittification of building cars like the Oldsmobile Aurora and the latter Saabs using the badges of formerly better car companies than GM. I'm sure those shitty cars have their fanbase all the same.
monkers
Legendary Member
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
AuroraSaab
Squire
UK adults over 18 are perfectly free to pursue cosmetic procedures, including having their genitals removed. I hope his patients have had comprehensive counselling to understand the risks and complications though.
He claims a 20% suicide rate if patients don't get surgery, which simply isn't true and which can promote suicidal ideology in young people.
The quality of studies into the satisfaction of patients after such surgery is of poor quality and often short term, but at £23k a time I'm sure this doctor explains all that before he picks up the scalpel to remove healthy body parts.
He claims a 20% suicide rate if patients don't get surgery, which simply isn't true and which can promote suicidal ideology in young people.
The quality of studies into the satisfaction of patients after such surgery is of poor quality and often short term, but at £23k a time I'm sure this doctor explains all that before he picks up the scalpel to remove healthy body parts.
