monkers
Shaman
You can ask your question without the bracketed snide. If you expect questions to be answered you have to respect the person and their reply. Can you do that?
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
You can ask your question without the bracketed snide. If you expect questions to be answered you have to respect the person and their reply. Can you do that?
monkers
Shaman
I'll assume Andy that when required you can act as an adult. So the answer is complex, and it requires a sense of nuance or the concept remains opaque.
First of all, sex is not a true binary, so the term ''biological sex'' misses the target. If you simply set the binary as xx and xy you miss a number of people that are quite small in percentage terms, but large as a raw number, since a small percentage of 8 billion is a large number. Would you like an extra 0.2% of 8 billion as additional income? Few would reject it. So context is everything.
Gametes do not produce an accurate outcome either since not all people produce gametes, or if they do they may not be healthy gametes.
So reproductive pathway becomes the accurate framing if you want to make a strict binary. In my case, I am neither male or female on the reproductive pathway. I'm neither. So there is no binary distinction here that accurately puts me in either place.
Yes I'm in the subset of our species being xy (probably) so that at a cellular level, that suggests I'd be typically male, if only that was an absolute binary. But if you put me in a crowd of 99 cis women and you were asked to pick me out, your odds would be a lot worse than 99:1. So your perception would almost undoubtedly fail the test of ''what a woman is''. So perception is unreliable as a diagnostic tool.
Since the perception of harm comes from a belief that have an xy gene means that my behaviour is not just that of a man, but that of a depraved man is as wide a miss as you could make. It isn't so much genes that affect mindset, it's hormones. I have no testosterone and a similar hormone level to cis women, though mine is much more steady state as I have no sexual rhythm. So where does my mindset fit in, with men or with women. If you were able to ask those who know me, they've give you the most curious look and think you a ''pillock''. I don't hang out with men. It's not some inherent rejection of men per se. My genitals were not adjusted because I wanted to have penetrative sex with anyone - it was necessary to be affirming, in the same way that some women opt for a boob job, it isn't just about improving appearance like a face lift, it affirms identity. And yes immediately after the surgery, which is invasive, but not as invasive as say heart surgery, there was an appearance of road kill - however it heals, and remarkable quickly with little evidence of surgery remaining after 3 months.
So that's the biology lesson over with.
In life, science and law there is a need to give something an artificial identity, a deliberate falsehood, because without there is system collapse. In maths that falsehood occurs in a branch called complex numbers, where numbers are deemed to have an identity which is an otherwise mathematical impossibility - the square root of a negative number. Ask a calculator to evaluate the square root of minus four, and it will declare ''error''. However it's necessary to engineers to deem it a possibility.
To protect a prosecution witness to a major crime, we give them a false identity. They have a right to protection, therefore it is necessary of them to be given a different identity. Women who have been raped by a husband may assume a new identity, that is a prerogative. Otherwise people change their identity for all manner of reason. It's a right to self-determination, or a freedom if you will. And if you have a thing for Cheryl Cole, the law will permit you to change your identity to Cheryl Cole, and that does not imply any intention to transition, it's just a freedom that you can enjoy, nothing compulsory, completely optional. In this new identity the law will protect you on the grounds of sex.
So I've used the word ''deem'' a couple of times now, which leads to the next point about the nature of a deeming provision.
Now for the legal lesson, and I'm going to speed this up by use of Copilot Pro.
Certainly, (name redacted). A deeming provision in UK law is a legislative tool that creates a legal fiction—it treats something as having a particular status or effect, even if that status or effect doesn't exist in reality. These provisions are often phrased as “is deemed to be,” “shall be treated as,” or “is taken to be,” and they serve specific statutory purposes, allowing the law to operate more consistently or efficiently in complex scenarios.
The deeming provision in Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) was necessary to ensure that legal recognition of a person’s acquired gender had full and consistent effect across UK law. Without it, trans individuals who obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) would face fragmented or uncertain legal status.
So Andy, yes, I am a woman, but not a cis woman, which is why the words, trans and cis are necessary in some conversations such as healthcare.
First of all, sex is not a true binary, so the term ''biological sex'' misses the target. If you simply set the binary as xx and xy you miss a number of people that are quite small in percentage terms, but large as a raw number, since a small percentage of 8 billion is a large number. Would you like an extra 0.2% of 8 billion as additional income? Few would reject it. So context is everything.
Gametes do not produce an accurate outcome either since not all people produce gametes, or if they do they may not be healthy gametes.
So reproductive pathway becomes the accurate framing if you want to make a strict binary. In my case, I am neither male or female on the reproductive pathway. I'm neither. So there is no binary distinction here that accurately puts me in either place.
Yes I'm in the subset of our species being xy (probably) so that at a cellular level, that suggests I'd be typically male, if only that was an absolute binary. But if you put me in a crowd of 99 cis women and you were asked to pick me out, your odds would be a lot worse than 99:1. So your perception would almost undoubtedly fail the test of ''what a woman is''. So perception is unreliable as a diagnostic tool.
Since the perception of harm comes from a belief that have an xy gene means that my behaviour is not just that of a man, but that of a depraved man is as wide a miss as you could make. It isn't so much genes that affect mindset, it's hormones. I have no testosterone and a similar hormone level to cis women, though mine is much more steady state as I have no sexual rhythm. So where does my mindset fit in, with men or with women. If you were able to ask those who know me, they've give you the most curious look and think you a ''pillock''. I don't hang out with men. It's not some inherent rejection of men per se. My genitals were not adjusted because I wanted to have penetrative sex with anyone - it was necessary to be affirming, in the same way that some women opt for a boob job, it isn't just about improving appearance like a face lift, it affirms identity. And yes immediately after the surgery, which is invasive, but not as invasive as say heart surgery, there was an appearance of road kill - however it heals, and remarkable quickly with little evidence of surgery remaining after 3 months.
So that's the biology lesson over with.
In life, science and law there is a need to give something an artificial identity, a deliberate falsehood, because without there is system collapse. In maths that falsehood occurs in a branch called complex numbers, where numbers are deemed to have an identity which is an otherwise mathematical impossibility - the square root of a negative number. Ask a calculator to evaluate the square root of minus four, and it will declare ''error''. However it's necessary to engineers to deem it a possibility.
To protect a prosecution witness to a major crime, we give them a false identity. They have a right to protection, therefore it is necessary of them to be given a different identity. Women who have been raped by a husband may assume a new identity, that is a prerogative. Otherwise people change their identity for all manner of reason. It's a right to self-determination, or a freedom if you will. And if you have a thing for Cheryl Cole, the law will permit you to change your identity to Cheryl Cole, and that does not imply any intention to transition, it's just a freedom that you can enjoy, nothing compulsory, completely optional. In this new identity the law will protect you on the grounds of sex.
So I've used the word ''deem'' a couple of times now, which leads to the next point about the nature of a deeming provision.
Now for the legal lesson, and I'm going to speed this up by use of Copilot Pro.
Certainly, (name redacted). A deeming provision in UK law is a legislative tool that creates a legal fiction—it treats something as having a particular status or effect, even if that status or effect doesn't exist in reality. These provisions are often phrased as “is deemed to be,” “shall be treated as,” or “is taken to be,” and they serve specific statutory purposes, allowing the law to operate more consistently or efficiently in complex scenarios.
🧠 What Is a Deeming Provision?
- It constructs a hypothetical legal reality to achieve a statutory goal.
- Used to simplify legal interpretation, fill gaps, or extend legal consequences.
- Its scope is strictly limited to the purpose for which it was enacted—courts won’t extend its effect beyond that.
📌 Examples of Deeming Provisions in UK Law
1. Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) – Schedule 3
- If a person fails to challenge the seizure of goods within one month, the goods are deemed to be duly condemned as forfeited.
- This was upheld in Revenue & Customs v Shaw [2016] UKUT 4 (TCC), where a tractor was deemed forfeited due to procedural non-compliance.
2. Income Tax (Employment and Pensions) Act 2003 – Section 471(3)
- If an employer provides an employee with the opportunity to acquire securities, it is deemed to be by reason of employment.
- In HMRC v Vermilion Holdings Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled that the share option granted to a director was deemed employment-related, triggering income tax rather than capital gains tax.
3. Inheritance Tax Act 1984 – Section 267
- A person is deemed domiciled in the UK for inheritance tax purposes if they were UK domiciled within the last three years or resident for 15 of the last 20 years. This affects how trusts and estates are taxed, even if the person is technically non-domiciled.
The deeming provision in Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) was necessary to ensure that legal recognition of a person’s acquired gender had full and consistent effect across UK law. Without it, trans individuals who obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) would face fragmented or uncertain legal status.
⚖️ Why It Was Necessary
- Legal certainty: The provision states that once a GRC is issued, the person’s gender “becomes for all purposes the acquired gender.” This creates a clear legal fiction that their sex is changed in law, even though biological sex remains unchanged.
- Administrative coherence: It allows for consistent treatment across legal documents—birth certificates, marriage certificates, pensions, and more—without needing to amend every statute individually.
- Equality in rights and obligations: It ensures that trans people with a GRC are treated in law as their acquired gender in areas like succession, taxation, and social security, unless explicitly excluded (e.g. peerages or gender-specific offences).
- Judicial interpretation: Courts rely on this deeming provision to apply laws consistently. For example, in Goodwin v UK (2002), the European Court of Human Rights emphasized the need for legal recognition of gender identity, which the GRA sought to implement.
🧩 Why Not Just Change the Birth Certificate?
Changing the birth certificate alone wouldn’t suffice. Many legal rights and responsibilities hinge on statutory definitions of sex and gender, and without a deeming provision, trans individuals could be excluded from protections or obligations that apply to their affirmed gender.So Andy, yes, I am a woman, but not a cis woman, which is why the words, trans and cis are necessary in some conversations such as healthcare.
Last edited:
monkers
Shaman
You have the manners of swine. Don't trouble me further with your ignorance. I've learnt my lesson, there is no way in which you can be trusted because you are a man baby.
CXRAndy
Shaman
Yes it is binary, all mammals are either male or female.
Trying to spin 'it's complicated' is frankly bullshît.
monkers
Shaman
There are two paths to ignorance and you follow them both, no wonder you are lost. When lost in a maze use compass, when lost in a moral maze, use a moral compass.
Shout again when the diaper needs changing.
Oh wait, Aurora says that we can't ever trust doctors - it's a ''plea to authority''. No Aurora the courts ordinarily lean heavily on the opinions of expert witnesses. I doubt they will be calling on any of us on the forum.
Last edited:
monkers
Shaman
Dear Poacher, I take back what I said in its entirety. I kicked the ball, it hit the goal post, bounced back and hit me in the face. My apologies.
monkers
Shaman
Somebody change the manbaby's diaper please.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
It's the doctor relatives you produce as a claim to medical authority that I don't trust. You know the ones. They appear out of thin air when convenient, turn out to proved be totally wrong and never appear again.
Neither do I trust the activist doctors who make a living from providing meds and surgery.
The motion passed at the conference represents only the small number of medics who attended, and who bothered to vote. Unless you care to provide us with the number who voted in favour we don't know how representative it is of the 50k junior doctors in the UK.
It still wouldn't change the fact that sex is binary in humans. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
monkers
Shaman
Oh yes I remember now, anyone who rebuts your claims in an ''activist'', though of course you are not. Mirrors are available at a range of outlets.
Also the BMA is not a doctor who ''appears out of thin air''.
False construction (again). ''Male doctor = predator''. Actually a shameful slur on men.
Last edited:
icowden
Shaman
Thank you - and for your response to Andy. I think what is clear is that you were in a position where you transitioned very early and therefore your physical appearance is entirely female, therefore the issue of using women's facilities does not come up. You look female and your body is also adjusted to look female. In other words if any of us met you we would be very unlikely to think that you had been born male.
If we contrast this to Dr Beth Upton, she is also a transwoman but also someone who is unmistakeably male in appearance. An interesting (or not) facet of this is that Dr Upton apparently began transitioning (although what type of transition isn't defined) in 2022 - the same year that she had the altercation with Sandie Peggie. Many women would say that at the point in time the issues circulate around, Dr Upton was just a man in a dress taking advantage.
The question is - at what point does the line begin? In your case, based upon what you have said, it would clearly be absurd for you to use a men's changing room or toilet. In the Peggie case the appropriateness seems a lot more questionable.
monkers
Shaman
However, in evidence there is witness testimony about what Sandie Peggie had been saying about her colleagues with regard to a colleague's race, and how she disliked the smell of certain foods (as if the two thing maybe linked). This is overt racism. It was also said that she often voiced unpopular strong political views. Alongside that she made inappropriate remarks about Dr Beth Upton before the clash, saying something about being in a room with him was like being with a convicted rapist. This is a clear view that she conflates trans women with predation.
In the little transcript you posted concerning Naomi Cunningham, there was a reduction of law which reinforces that mind set. It attempts to reset the legislation into a lower threshold of culpability for trans women. The presentation of the legal threshold for sexual harassment is lowered from wrongdoing to mere presence. Even when thought of as a 'man' this becomes an unacceptable slur on men.
Last edited:
