Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
icowden
Legendary Member
And legal sex is still biological sex effectively. A very small minority of people have obtained a GRC which currently requires some fairly stringent checks such as an official diagnosis and living for two years as your assigned gender. Yes, the government are planning changes as the pro-trans movement want anyone who feels like it to be able to get one thus completely devaluing its usefulness as a document.
They didn't, as you well know. They passed the equal marriage bill which provides for same sex marriages. Are you really still confused about this? If a transwoman is a woman then this bill wouldn't be required for a marriage between a man and a transwoman. So are they men or women? You can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
qigong chimp
Settler of gobby hash.
Oh what a zinger! You've won the internet with that
I am sorry; I've been neglecting you, haven't I?
monkers
Legendary Member
The argument put forward by GC people is that legal sex is a fraud; that only biological sex matters.
It's true that only a small number of GRCs have been issued, this is not caused by a lack of demand, but the political failure to resource provision. If trans healthcare was appropriately funded, the numbers would be significantly higher.
Trans rights are cemented in the 2004 Act. The EqA 2010 replaced all other equality legislation that went before it save for the 2004 Act which remains in statute. The EqA does provide for some exemptions to those right which according to the guidance should be limited and applied on a case-by-case basis, and is not provided as scope for blanket bans such is sometimes said by others. The EqA provides protection under the characteristic of 'gender reassignment'. This legislation does not only apply to those people with a GRC but to all transitioners right from the time that they tell their GP that they intend to undergo transition.
Just to remind you, there is no diagnostic test for sex/gender incongruence, or what used to be called 'gender dysphoria'. What the 2 year transition period does is to listen to and record the conversation between the transitioner and the clinician. That conversation concerns the socialising progress made by the transitioner over that period of time, and of course any medical needs or concerns.
Hypothetically, if an trans woman applicant for a GRC wrote on their application that they still prefer to use the gents loo because the woman's loo hasn't got urinals, their application would likely be declined.
monkers
Legendary Member
No I'm not at all confused. Sorry to say I think you are.
When the 2004 Bill was passed, that was a full nine years before the 2013 Couples (Same Sex) Marriage Act. Accordingly the 2004 could not and did not provide that trans women could marry cis women. It could not have anticipated the 2013 Act.
The 2004 Act provided that a trans woman with a GRC could marry a man (cis or trans), or could otherwise enter into a civil partnership with a woman. Hence the law gave legal preponderance to the acquired gender and sex over biological sex.
By the way, before the Corbett versus Corbett divorce case of 1969/1970, a person was free to have the record of their birth sex amended. The status of that court ruling lasted a comparatively short amount of time. The Gender Recognition Act to that effect formalised what had been accepted practice regarding birth certificates prior to 1969.
To quote you directly from the pre-2013 guidance ...
''You are now entitled to all the rights appropriate to a person of your acquired gender. This includes the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, or to form a civil partnership with someone of the same gender, ...''
icowden
Legendary Member
The 2004 Civil Partnership Act provided that two people of the same gender could enter into a civil partnership.
If, as you say, a transwoman is a woman, they would not have needed this act, they could just have married.
Unless they were a "lesbian" .
\The 2004 GR act allowed for people with a GRC to be legally treated as their acquired gender. Thus a transwoman marrying a man could get a marriage, if they were marrying woman then a civil partnership. You couldn't chop and choose you had to divorce then remarry / civil partnership .
To quote directly from the 2004 act as implemented:-
They must be of the same sex. Doesn't mention gender recognition or acquired gender.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
The Gender Recognition was given Royal Assent before the Civil Partnership Act.
The whole point of the Gender Recognition Act is to give legal recognition of the gender identity of the person, and then align their assigned sex with that gender identity, hence the issue of a replacement birth certificate. In this way trans women are women, and trans men are men.
There was no need for that to be repeated in any or every subsequent act.
Same sex couples could not marry until 2013. A trans woman with a GRC and a cis man could legally marry from 2004. A trans woman with a GRC could not marry a cis woman, their sex was deemed the same in law from the provision of the GRA, therefore a civil partnership was an available option.
Before the GRA a trans woman could marry a cis woman or a trans man, but not a cis man.
Last edited:
icowden
Legendary Member
They could also only do that afterwards. It was the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 that conferred same sex partnership rights, not the GRA. All the GRA did was to affirm that if you had one you would be treated as your acquired sex for the purposes of marriage / civil partnership. And they required some screening to get.
The new proposal is that anyone can apply tomorrow and just say they are a woman. This does not protect women. This does the reverse. This is why many women think it is a bad idea.
monkers
Legendary Member
I never said that the Gender Recognition Act 'conferred same sex partnership rights'.
I think the dates are causing the muddle here. The GRA received Royal Assent 1st July 2004 and commenced 4th April 2005. The Civil Partnership Act received Royal Assent later on 18th November 2004 and commenced 5th December 2005.
On the face of it I can see that you'd think that therefore the GRA could not have anticipated the CVA - and you'd be right, except that forgetting one factor will lead to a wrong conclusion. This is because of the requirement for the two years minimum transition period, which would mean that the guidance notes issued with the very first gender recognition certificate would have been sent out some time after the commencement of the CVA and would have included the advice about opposite sex and same sex marriage arrangements.
By the way, when you say that I say 'trans women are women' I'm not offering a philosophical belief, or an opinion, I'm simply stating the law; any belief or opinion I happen to have is an irrelevance. The legal sex and gender of a trans woman with a GRC is female and woman because the law says so, not because I say so. This is what parliament decided. The UK was obliged to produce law that was compatible with the European Court of Human Rights following the earlier Goodwin case.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
Women have been sold the idea that self-Id will start a rush of men just using the women's loos and just saying, 'oh I did a quick self-Id last week and now I'm a woman'. This is alarmist propaganda that is too readily believed by some.
I had lunch on Tuesday with my friend Betty. She raised this with me. I explained to her that self-id doesn't change anything. As I have said already, a man can already enter a women's loo and just say, 'I intend to transition therefore under the law I have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and I have the right to be here.' Interesting that that never seems to happen.
I explained this to Betty, and also explained that segregating facilities by biological sex increases the potential for harm rather than reduces it, since any man will be able to enter a women's public loo and just need to say, 'I'm a trans man, I'm using the facility that matches my biological sex as now required'. No need to perform a gender role, just be the bloke they are and have the perfect excuse for being there.
Betty now gets it and sees that self-Id will not increase the potential for harm and that biological existentialism would.
Last edited:
qigong chimp
Settler of gobby hash.
I envy women being pre-endowed with a clutch of eggs from the off, needing only to unwrap one from time to time, while men - the true creatives in the reproductive endeavour - must toil and strain to manufacture from scratch, ex nihilo, gazillions of energetic, fleet-footed, keen sperms.
No wonder men die younger.
No wonder men die younger.
monkers
Legendary Member
Yes but all women have penis envy don't they? Ah, the grass is always greener on the other side.
qigong chimp
Settler of gobby hash.
Well they certainly should, but whether they do or not largely depends on how much evil feminist propaganda they've been exposed to in their formative years.
monkers
Legendary Member
First time I've heard Freud called an evil feminist, but that thought should amuse me for hours.
