Praise is heaped on the Supreme Court for finally offering 'clarity'. I am still confused and predict many more years of litigation to come without political will to legislate.
If you read my essays for Genspect here on Substack, you may gain the impression that the NHS gender clinic programme has been attempting to 'cure' gay men and lesbians for decades, as the successor to the courts' punishment of gay men prior to the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
THe NHS homo cure so far has merely been talking - not adressing their predilection for other men's body secretions.
I doubt the NHS has attempted to cure lesbians of the same sickness.
The NHS has tried to cure MtFs by injections of male hormones but that fails miserably.
Mtf brains are wired to female while female brains are not wired to female.
Most Ftms are just pre-dyke lesbians.
Lesbians choose to deliberately adopt a masculine appearance by ingesting other lesbian's body fluids - it is called PGSISD - and is the reason so many old dykes look like old blokes - and act like sex mad teenage boys.
Ellen DeGeneris being a perfect example. Clare Balding will look like a little old Irish man in a few years as the effects of her lesbian activitity progresses.
These old rough dykes can be seen anywhere lesbains gather.
PGSISD is just as effective as the hormones MtF and FtMs take but no one likes to think of dykes sticking their tongues up other women's vaginas.
A few years ago the Big Brother telly program had a truly obnoxious dyke who claimed she could make any straight woman into a dyke after just one sexual episode.
One US school system had to clamp down on black lesbains who were forcing younger girls to lick the older one's vagians to make them instantly addicted to vaginals secretions.
One British women wrote of being at a girl's school where each evening older girls would foce younger ones to lick their vaginas to make them lesbian - no wonder public schools are such hothouses of perversion!
No doubt homosexual's secretions are just as addictive and eventually make homos look like limpwristed faggots.
How many politicians and churchmen had been exposed as addicted to same sex body sexcretions?
I'm nearly 70 and I've been hoping for, and fighting for, equality for women most of my life, as did my Grandmother before me. This whole 'trans' issue has been a slap in the face for ALL real women. Just having to say 'real women' fills me with rage. It's also a slap in the face for gay and lesbian, men and women - setting our causes back decades! My dreams of equality for us, in my lifetime, seem to be getting dimmer. I'm a pagan and believe in science and Nature..... 'transforming' into something totally different is nonsensical and abhorant. Can we please STOP calling them 'trans women' they are NOT, and never will be, WOMEN.
There's only one kind of woman. There don't exist fake women so no modifier in front of the word "women" is necessary, and it only serves to advance the lie of the existence of male women.
I have always assumed that the PC of gender reassignment was most like the PC of religion - that an organisation can't just sack you or remove you because of your religion or lack of. Same with the other 7 characteristics of course. But I think most trans people think this means they cannot be asked to leave a dedicated space intended for the biological sex that they are NOT. And this all stems from the ludicrous idea that 'gender' (rather than sex) means anything objective in the physical world at all. Crazy ideas (and their human hosts) always want the power to subsume rational ideas and then call themselves 'rational'. What has fuelled the crazy ideas is the conflated use of 'gender' with biological sex. 'Gender' is in large part still used on application forms, which I'm sure just empowers the aforementioned crazy ideas. What is wrong with the word 'sex'? I suppose people will just answer, 'yes please'!
It's sobering to think how much of the present mess stems from a deliberate attempt to avoid using the word 'sex' because it made people giggle or get embarrassed. Ruth Bader Ginsberg for e.g. chose to refer to 'gender' otherwise she worried Judges wouldn't listen to her. I think the PC of GR goes way beyond mere belief and actually states that it is possible to 're-assign' the 'attributes' of your sex. I think that is very dangerous territory. It can't possibly refer to flesh and blood so it can only refer to irrelevant externalities such as hair, make up and dresses. None of which turn a man into a woman.
I was interested in the phrase "physiological or other attributes of sex" and could not track it back any further than the The Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999.
Am I right in thinking that the 1999 Statutory Instrument was introduced to comply with *Judgment of the Court of 30 April 1996. - P v S and Cornwall County Council. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Industrial Tribunal, Truro - United Kingdom. - Equal treatment for men and women - Dismissal of a transsexual. - Case C-13/94.*?
(I looked all this up in Dec 2022 and IANAL so I might have got that wrong.)
That Judgement does not mention "physiological or other attributes of sex" but it does include the phrases "physical characteristics", "physical attributes" and "belonging physically to one sex".
"Physiological" is more specific because it refers to bodily functions rather than form, eg. the ability to breastfeed, rather than possession of breasts; the ability to impregnate, rather than possession of a penis. It therefore encompasses "modifications of function" by whatever means they are achieved.
Going back through the earlier European cases, the other attributes cited in evidence as being altered include a mixture of alterations of:
- appearance, eg. a woman adopting stereotypical, culturally-specific masculine hair cuts, clothing, etc.
- behaviours of the person, ie. a woman performing stereotypical, culturally-specific ways of walking, talking, jobs and roles.
- documentation, eg. registering a change of name with utility companies
- the behaviour of others, eg. friends, family, work colleagues using opposite-sex pronouns.
That is from memory and I have not looked at the judgements since Dec 2022, so apologies if I have missed anything or misremembered but I think that is where we need to go to try to work out what was meant by "other attributes" of sex when it first popped up in UK legislation in 1999.
I think your knowledge is way more extensive than mine! It is indeed interesting to track this. The seeds were sown a long time ago, and very few noticed.
I really need to go back and look at the cases again. At the time I was curious about what was being referred to by the two parts to the phrase "physiological and other attributes" and it looks like I did not make any notes - which I am kicking myself for now!
Lesbians choose to deliberately adopt a masculine appearance by ingesting other lesbian's body fluids - it is called PGSISD - and is the reason so many old dykes look like old blokes - and act like sex mad teenage boys.
Ellen DeGeneris being a perfect example. Clare Balding will look like a little old Irish man in a few years as the effects of her lesbian activitity progresses.
These old rough dykes can be seen anywhere lesbains gather.
PGSISD is just as effective as the hormones MtF and FtMs take but no one likes to think of dykes sticking their tongues up other women's vaginas.
A few years ago the Big Brother telly program had a truly obnoxious dyke who claimed she could make any straight woman into a dyke after just one sexual episode.
One US school systee had to clamp down on black lesbains who were forcing younger girls to lick the older one's vagians to make them instantly addicted to vaginals secretions.
One British women wrote of being at a girl's school where each evening older girls would foce younger ones to lick their vaginas to make them lesbian - no wonder public schools are such hothouses of perversion!
No doubt homosexual's secretions are just as addictive and eventually make homos look like limpwristed faggots.
How many politicians and churchmen had been exposed as addicted to same sex body sexcretions?
Absolutely. Thinking back to the make-up, dresses, and long blonde whigs I wore once (as a performing musician I might add!), I never once thought I was closer to being a woman, even if I wanted to be. Humanity is very strange, and this whole 'gender-affirming' thing is one of the strangest departures from sense I can think of.
However many old dykes have found that ingesting other women's vaginal secretions does turn them into old blokes - as can be seen at any dyke bar or club.
What the Gov't must do is get the NHS to start REPARATIVE THERAPY to eradicate lesbianism and homosexuality.
The "attributes of sex" do refer to flesh and blood, not irrelevant externalities - para 200 of the SC judgment specifies the attributes are "necessarily biological." This must mean clothing, hairstyles, pronouns etc are excluded. This means that some previous cases have been incorrectly decided, I think. But it also appears to make the PC of GA vacuous, as biological sex cannot be changed by any process yet known. At the very most it can only cover full surgical interventions - i.e. transsexuals in the sense that was understood in 2019 and before.
I don't think it should cause too much trouble. You are the female sex if your body was organised around the production of large gametes; male if small gametes. This is instantly observable in 99.9% of people.
100% of females - apart from the few born maimed - are designed to enjoye penile penetration and childbearing but lesbians perversion alters their minds to deny this natural function in favour of pretending to be male and mimicking penile penetration by use of the many rubbed dildos seen in the sex adverts.
I once spoke with a man who worked at Dunlop's Rubber factory in Harrogate and when no foreman was about he used to create huge dildos with the liquid rubber and had a ready market for them among Harrogate's dykes. They liked them with really big knob ends.
There really is no way to define this in reality because "transsexuals" do not exist.
The law is based on a lie, and laws cannot turn lies into truth. Forcing a lie into society only results in chaos. So the whole thing has to be thrown out. The paragraphs, subsections, acts, etc. really don't matter. None of it is real.
Then how do we protect religion under the EA? that isn't 'real'. People are allowed to believe mad things and can't be sacked or abused for it. What no one can do is change sex. Or force anyone else to worship their gods.
Religion aka the Bible says homosexuals and lesbians are perverts and will be slaughtered when Jesus returns - is that what you meant?
I grew up in a town where there is a Jesuit seminary full of homos and a now-closed Catholic college has a website with the young homos reminiscing about all the homosexuality they revelled in.
GOOD KING HENRY 8th slaughtered thousands of homo and lesbian monks and nuns when he abolished Catholicism back in 1539.
It is possible to join the Anglican Church, Catholic Church, or Mormon Church, or become a Buddhist or Sikh. One can change religions and people have done so through whatever the process is.
I'm an atheist, I will not defend any particular religions teachings because I think they are all false. But one can change or join a religion. This is a basic constitutional right guaranteed in the First Amendment in the United States.
Nobody can change sex. No male can become female because it is literally impossible, and that is the core of the "trans" agenda. It's not a religion. It's a medical, legal, and media agenda that leads to men in women's prisons.
A male Buddhist or Catholic still plays male sports or has to go to a male prison. It doesn't upend society and cause adults to to get plastic surgery.
This isn't just about believing mad things. "Trans" is not just belief--that's what everyone must understand. This is laws, documents, health insurance, plastic surgery, sports, prisons, lawsuits, changing rooms--it is simply never ending. It cannot be tolerated. Men will not be able to just "pretend" that they're women. They are funded by billions in activist money, pressure groups, law firms to force this in every aspect of society.
Once that is understood, it can be stopped. I think you think this is just about fashion and hair. It never was.
This is very clearly (sorry!) set out and I’ve tried to disagree but I can’t. Often I think of women denied the vote - did any women try to vote but was found out? If so, did they just look at her or ask for BC. Which in those days waa rock solid absolute truth. But we aren’t in that world now and as you say who has the stomach to gate keep bad male actors who could have changed BCs. “But how do we justify exclusion of a woman on the basis of passing? Why doesn’t that lead to justifying the inclusion of a man because he does?” I wondered that too and was actually really aghast at that para on passing (a gender ideology concept if ever I heard one) - as you say, how are decisions to be made about whether a woman looks “too masculine” to be accepted in the women’s facility. As for the second part of that, didn’t the J say women need protecting from men in a way that they don’t from women. The power imbalance and stats bear out that passing is not a concept that is taken into account when EA2010 Exceptions are in operation. Really the Q is as you say: how do we prevent self-ID happening anyway for men with GRC?. I’d add that even if we got rid of GRA does the same problem arise, unless we need men to go round with ID that gives their sex?? Agree absolutely that it’s absurd to give any ground to the idea of gender reassignment as meaning anything at all when it requires no action; and belief would cover it and provide protection.
thanks for the thoughtful reply. I obviously agree that women and men pose asymetrical risks to other women; men are at very little risk of harm from a woman in their spaces, even one on testosterone. But the SC did not mention that in this particular example (not sure if they did elsewhere??); they framed this as an issue of 'passing' which I think undermines their purported clarity about sex is sex is sex.
The article was superb, but I think it reckless generalisation to say that "men are at very little risk of harm from a woman in their spaces". There are weak men and strong women. There are principled men and unprincipled women. I know a physically very strong man who has been bullied for years by a physically average woman who is exceptionally, brutally, vicious. If you said the risk was rare, rather than small, I would agree.
I am afraid I will continue to disagree. It is a fact that men pose a significantly greater risk to women than women do to men. That you are aware of some exceptions to this does not make my reliance on fact ‘reckless’.
My objection had no implications for action or rules, which should indeed be based on the typical, not the exception. You could yet rely better on fact with the help of qualifiers such as 'usually', typically.... Anyway you're doing such a good job I shouldn't be quarrelling. In the words of another Sarah, "Don't overthink it, Richard"
In the case of changing sex, there are no exceptions. No one has gone from male to female even if they pass, and essentially none do without blockers, considering all relevant factors (voice, hands, feet, male ego). That includes Robert Ryan "Blaire" White, who makes YouTube videos about his penis and testicles.
The reason why there is still confusion about sex vs gender is that gender has no application to humans.
Using the word itself is the very source of confusion, which was John Money's intent:
"However, adults with gender dysphoria exist. Those who wish to adopt sex stereotypes of the sex opposite to their own should not be abused, harassed or sacked for this. I think they can be protected by a belief in ‘gender identity’."
There is no such thing as "gender dysphoria" or "gender identity."
No male can feel female. This is primarily fetish and delusion. The only thing that will work is a complete rejection of this.
That is the hard truth everyone will eventually arrive to because any entertainment of this lie leads to chaos, which we see everywhere.
What a breathtakingly brilliant and thought- provoking piece: thank you! You put into words what previously had been a confused collection of ideas I struggled to express. This is an area where there is far less room for compromise than people realise. As we say in Scotland, "Ye cannie ride two horses wi' one arse."
Gender Dysphoria is a symptom, not a condition. It is the subjective feelings of the patient with no clinical evidence to support it. It is absolutely no justification for allowing the patient to change sex and reflect that on identification documents. The PC of GR needs to be removed. Gender Dysphoria can be protected under the PC of disability. A belief that one has a Gender Identity can be protected under the PC of Religion or Belief. The belief that one has a Gender Identity at variance with ones's sex could again come under the PC of Disability as a mental health issue.
I prefer a belief. I don’t think it should be a disability - what reasonable adjustments then flow from that? But yes, let people who want to benefit from that establish it. It makes sense to me to treat belief in gender identity as a quasi religious belief. We allow people to believe all kinds of mad things - why not this? Doesn’t impact the reality of sex.
Define cross dressing. I wear trousers all the time. May I? I could not give a damn if a man wants to wear a skirt. What is the issue if he does? Is this part of his feral sexual fantasy that he is actively masturbating as he does? If he isn’t visibly aroused may he be left to get on with his day?
So what? He isn't. He can try as much as he likes. No one else has to go along with it. But if he wants to wear a body con dress and fishnets to work, provided that's allowed by his company's dress code, crack on mate. I won't take him seriously as a professional but that's the choice he makes.
Just to clarify, I wouldn't take ANYONE who wears that kind of outfit to work seriously - man, woman or non binary otherkin. But its not my business to police what people wear, unless its unsafe, unhygienic or very seriously offensive.
How? You have just denied it’s a condition? A symptom of what? Protecting it as a belief would surely be preferable to you rather than cementing it objectively as a disability? Have you thought this through? Adults can do what they like with their bodies: no in can change sex.
Mental health conditions such as ASD and Schizophrenia are registered as disabilities in the workplace. It was Az Hakeem who said GD was a symptom, not a condition. Isn’t believing you are born in the wrong body a mental health issue?
DM3-3 was created by a team of 9 psychiatrists/psychologists under Pritzker: a sort of committe making suggestions on diagnoses and symptoms. They admitted that few of the diagnoses had any underlying clinical basis.
For the purposes of removing the PC of GR we could just protect the belief/delusion that they have a GI and one at variance with their sex under the PC of Religion or Belief and then let the transgenderists argue for it being a mental health symptom/condition worthy of being registered as a disability?
These are disabilities because they are mental delusions.
Schizophrenics do not have the civil right or legal right to force doctors, or anyone else, to "affirm" their delusions. They are told the voices aren't real, they're not Napoleon, and they get real treatment.
The same must be for men who think they're women. Anything else results in the chaos we see because societies cannot function on lies.
The last paragraph is our strategy: no PC of GR, no falsification of the sex marker on ID documents. If the 'transgenderists' get it categorised as a disability what will the "reasonable adjustments" be in the workplace?
They have been arguing the case for "reasonable adjustments", hijacking the language of provisions for people with disabilities, since at least 2017:
Trans-inclusive Workplaces
Guidelines for Employers and Businesses
Authors: Prof. Stephen Whittle and Dr. Lewis Turner
This publication has been produced with financial support from the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union, the Open Society Foundation, and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and Transgender Europe, and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission, the Open Society Foundation, or the Dutch Government.
What reasonable adjustments do schizophrenics and anorexics get in the workplace? Can they get doctors to give them surgeries to go along with their delusions or file lawsuits if they don't call them what they want?
There is also the issue, that some are making much of, that the SC did not specify what it meant by "biological sex". IMHO it would not have made any difference if the SC had provided a definition because the very same people would have disputed it.
Going right back to the first case at the ECHR there have been attempts to include "psychological sex", "sex identity" or "sexual identity" (meaning what is now referred to as "gender identity" rather than "sexual orientation") as part of the definition of biological sex, ie. "predetermined at birth".
12. At birth the applicant possessed all the *physical and biological characteristics* of a child of the *female sex*, and was consequently recorded in the register of births as a female, under the name Brenda Margaret Rees. However, already from a tender age the child started to exhibit *masculine behaviour* and was ambiguous in appearance. In 1970, after learning that the *transsexual* state was *a medically recognised condition*, she sought treatment. She was prescribed methyl testosterone (a hormonal treatment) and started to develop *secondary male characteristics*.
14. Surgical treatment for *physical sexual conversion* began in May 1974 with a bilateral masectomy and led to the removal of *feminine external characteristics*.
16. On 10 November 1980 his solicitor wrote to the Registrar General making a formal request under Section 29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, on the ground that there had been "a mistake in completing the Register". In support of his request, the applicant submitted a medical report by Dr. C.N. Armstrong. The report stated that, in Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, of *the four criteria of sex* - namely *chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, apparent sex (external genitalia and body form) and psychological sex,* the last was the most important as it determined the individual’s social activities and role in adult life, and it was also, in his view, pre-determined at birth, though not evident until later in life. Dr. Armstrong considered that *as the applicant’s psychological sex was male, he should be assigned male.*
On 25 November the Registrar General refused the application to alter the Register. He stated that the report on the applicant’s *psychological sex* was not decisive and that, "in the absence of any medical report on the other agreed criteria *(chromosomal sex, gonadal sex and apparent sex)*", he was "unable to consider whether an error (had been) made at birth registration in that the child was not of the sex recorded". No further evidence in support of the applicant’s request was subsequently submitted.
========
As far as European Law and UK Law are concerned this looks like the first attempt to enshrine "gender identity" as the determiner of legal sex, although back in 1986 it was referred to as "psychological sex". Forty years on, they have not given up trying.
I assumed the SC rely on the April Ashley case which set out the determinants of sex and those haven’t changed. But interesting case, thanks for posting.
54. The common law of England and Wales did not recognise the possibility of a person becoming a different gender from their gender at birth. In the well-known case of Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83, the High Court declared that a marriage was null and void where both parties were biological males but one had undergone gender reassignment. Ormrod J said that over a very large area, the law is indifferent to sex. In other areas, such as insurance and pension schemes, there was nothing to prevent the parties to a contract from agreeing that the person concerned should be treated as a man or a woman, as the case may be: p 105. But marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman and, in the context of marriage, even if not for other purposes, the person was still a biological male. That conclusion that a person could not change sex was applied in the criminal law in R v Tan [1983] QB 1053.
. . . and . . . they tried it on in Corbett v Corbett but were not successful:
James Comyn Q.C. and/Leonard Lewis Q.C. for the respondent.
"Sex is the sum of a number of things both external and internal and pertaining to both body and mind. Consideration must be given to hormonal make up, the
person's psychological condition and chromosomal factors."
However, the Corbett v Corbett judgement sees the psychological element as being an "anomaly" and an "abnormality".
"There was general agreement among all the doctors on the basic principles and the fundamental scientific facts. Anomalies of sex may be divided into two broad divisions, those cases which are primarily psychological in character, and those in which there are developmental abnormalities in the anatomy of the reproductive system (including the external genitalia). Two kinds of psychological abnormality are recognised, the transvestite and the transsexual."
Later:
"I must now deal with the anatomical and physiological anomalies of the sex organs, although I think that this part of the evidence is of marginal significance only in the present case. In other cases, it may be of cardinal importance. All the medical witnesses accept that there are, at least, four criteria for assessing the sexual condition of an individual. These are -
(i) Chromosomal factors.
(ii) Gonadal factors (ie presence or absence of testes or ovaries). (iii) Genital factors (including internal sex organs).
(iv) Psychological factors."
However, the judgement on "psychological factors" was not that April Ashley (Corbett) was "psychologically female" or "psychologically male" but that he was "psychologically transsexual", ie. a male with the psychological condition of believing himself to be the opposite sext.
"My conclusions of fact on this part of the case can be summarised, therefore, as follows. The respondent has been shown to have XY chromosomes and, therefore, to be of male chromosomal sex; to have had testicles prior to the operation and, therefore, to be of male gonadal sex; to have had male external genitalia without 46 any evidence of internal or external female sex organs and, therefore, to be of male genital sex; and psychologically to be a transsexual."
Interesting to see that this was at a time when everyone understood that "transsexual man" meant a male. It was the same in the late 1970's. I wonder when the deliberately confusing swap happened and males became known as "transsexual women"?
Sarah, did you hear the Lords debate yesterday when Baroness Faulkner said that the EHRC guidance was only preliminary and that they will be consulting with all those affected by the SC ruling while producing their full guidance? There were so many ‘ladies’ expressing concern for trans women, one said she has a ‘trans child’ I found the whole thing rather worrying! I don’t think we are anyone at the end of this battle, have a listen
We definitely are no where near the end. The guidance will have to deal with what happens when someone provides falsified documents and how service providers actually go about excluding the masculine woman. Those are the 2 key problem areas for me.
I have doubts that a woman who wishes to pass as a man would attempt to force her way into a women-only space, as that would concede that she is in fact a woman. I expect the more likely problem to be a 'non-binary' identified female on testosterone asserting her right to go wherever she pleases, and getting pushback from other women. But even that will be a minor issue compared to the men who will continue to try it on.
Th High Court decision is rubbish but taken at face value it means that now the Gov't must act to ban same sex weddings and family units such as Elton John's as being two male perverts - and the same applies the many same sex women pairs such as Clare Balding's.
If there are only two sexes - presumably based on physical sex then obviously - any 'female' having sex with another female is a pervert - or unnatural as the Bible says just as it says men who lie with men will be lsuaghtered when Jesus returns and on Judgment Day all resurrected male and female perverts will be totally and instantly destroyed after being reminded of their life of perversity.
Similarly the Gov't must immediately order all single sex schools, clubs and organisations to immediately enrol enough other sex people to ensure each class or group is 50/50% male and female to ensure that there is little opportunity for lesbians to seduce younger girls and homos to seduce younger boys.
The basis of this rampant homosexuality and lesbianism is due to PGSISD that arises when single sexes are in close proximity in restricted situations.
So is the answer to eliminate the GRA or wait for more case law to refine decision making around it in the hope that it may provide greater clarity about how to manage Gendered issues ?
Either repeal/reform existing law so it is accessible and clear OR expect another 10 years of piecemeal challenges via tribunals at great emotional and financial cost. I know which option I prefer.
"But ‘victory’ will not be achieved until we can stop agonising and litigating about all this, and rest easy in the knowledge that the law recognises that sex is real and it matters, and that those who prefer to express a gender identity have the freedom to do so, within carefully defined and enforced parameters."
Referendum.
Societies function by acknowledging material differences to structure education, work, safety, and privacy.
Our institutions were built to accommodate and protect based on the physical differences between the sexes, not feelings or self-perception. That doesn’t mean denying anyone dignity as a human being, but reorganising society around self-declared identity rather than sex is a radical act! It deserves scrutiny, accountability, and more than anything, it deserves a democratic mandate.
I agree. But I have no quarrel with those who wish to believe in gender identity, provided they aren’t demanding I agree they have changed sex. We have to allow a wide degree of latitude to how adults present themselves, otherwise you may well be avoiding chaos but you are inviting in authoritarianism and repression - which I will reject and fight against.
I understand where you're coming from, but it will never be enough if the legal and medical authorities grant someone "gender identity." They will want birth certificate/drivers license/passport changes, hormones, surgeries, sports, prisons, pronouns, lawsuits, changing--it will never end.
The point is to force others to say that they have literally changed sex. There is no "gender identity" without that because that is the raison d'étre. It always has been and once that is understood, we can see what's happening.
Now if this is just about hair and clothing, that's what needs to be said. There is already a wide degree of latitude for that. Nobody minds if a man is wearing nail polish. But that is not what they're looking for. This is a legal, medical, media agenda.
In terms of authoritarianism and repression--you're in the UK. You live in a country where women are sent to jail for tweet for far longer than men who are convicted of rape and child p0rn graphy possession. The police visit people at 1:00 am and 2:00 to talk about social media posts about immigration that cause anxiety.
It seems like the UK has already devolved into repression. If the issue is free speech, there's a whole other conversation to be had.
If people can be told that they can't get lobotomies or healthy leg removal, then men can be told they're not women.
Opening the floodgate at all leads to public capture. That is the inexorable result of allowing "gender dysphoria" as a valid diagnosis as confirmed by doctors.
There is no other way this could have gone if this is considered valid in any way.
Either you are a woman, or you aren’t. If you have surgically reassigned your genitalia, every other single cell in your body will be screaming out the exact opposite. If you are still confused, I recommend treatment in accordance with the DSM-V: the diagnostic services manual on psychiatric conditions, specifically Gender Dysphoria.
"Surgical reassignment" is nothing more than mutilation. Nobody is allowed lobotomies or healthy leg removal no matter how mentally unstable they are. The same thing for someone who wants to be someone else, specifically the opposite sex. It's not possible, and it opens the door to chaos in society.
A government that is willing to falsify a birth certificate for a postmodern 'truth' is ready to falsify any aspect of the historical record.
Meanwhile out in the real world - the Gov't has facilitated and condoned the spread of homosexuality and lesbianism by allowing single sex marriages.
The High Court decision means the NHS must now have a nationwide program of REPARATIVE THERAPY TO CURE HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS.
If you read my essays for Genspect here on Substack, you may gain the impression that the NHS gender clinic programme has been attempting to 'cure' gay men and lesbians for decades, as the successor to the courts' punishment of gay men prior to the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
THe NHS homo cure so far has merely been talking - not adressing their predilection for other men's body secretions.
I doubt the NHS has attempted to cure lesbians of the same sickness.
The NHS has tried to cure MtFs by injections of male hormones but that fails miserably.
Mtf brains are wired to female while female brains are not wired to female.
Most Ftms are just pre-dyke lesbians.
Lesbians choose to deliberately adopt a masculine appearance by ingesting other lesbian's body fluids - it is called PGSISD - and is the reason so many old dykes look like old blokes - and act like sex mad teenage boys.
Ellen DeGeneris being a perfect example. Clare Balding will look like a little old Irish man in a few years as the effects of her lesbian activitity progresses.
These old rough dykes can be seen anywhere lesbains gather.
PGSISD is just as effective as the hormones MtF and FtMs take but no one likes to think of dykes sticking their tongues up other women's vaginas.
A few years ago the Big Brother telly program had a truly obnoxious dyke who claimed she could make any straight woman into a dyke after just one sexual episode.
One US school system had to clamp down on black lesbains who were forcing younger girls to lick the older one's vagians to make them instantly addicted to vaginals secretions.
One British women wrote of being at a girl's school where each evening older girls would foce younger ones to lick their vaginas to make them lesbian - no wonder public schools are such hothouses of perversion!
No doubt homosexual's secretions are just as addictive and eventually make homos look like limpwristed faggots.
How many politicians and churchmen had been exposed as addicted to same sex body sexcretions?
I'm nearly 70 and I've been hoping for, and fighting for, equality for women most of my life, as did my Grandmother before me. This whole 'trans' issue has been a slap in the face for ALL real women. Just having to say 'real women' fills me with rage. It's also a slap in the face for gay and lesbian, men and women - setting our causes back decades! My dreams of equality for us, in my lifetime, seem to be getting dimmer. I'm a pagan and believe in science and Nature..... 'transforming' into something totally different is nonsensical and abhorant. Can we please STOP calling them 'trans women' they are NOT, and never will be, WOMEN.
There's only one kind of woman. There don't exist fake women so no modifier in front of the word "women" is necessary, and it only serves to advance the lie of the existence of male women.
Absolutely Darian. Thank you.
There is only one kind of women - those who use choose male sexual partners - all other women who choose other women fo rsex are JUST PERVERTS!
so you are saying LGB perverts are real men and women?
Real women have sex with men - that is why they have vaginas that accept penises - and vice versa?
No doubt in ypur pagan ceremonies you promote perverted sex but as perverts are a minority your opinion doesn't eally count - BUT BIOLOGY DOES!
Woem are desiegned for sex with men and men with women!
Lesbians are perverts not real women!
All your dyke mates are addicted to the smells and secretions of other women's vaginas - real perversion!
I have always assumed that the PC of gender reassignment was most like the PC of religion - that an organisation can't just sack you or remove you because of your religion or lack of. Same with the other 7 characteristics of course. But I think most trans people think this means they cannot be asked to leave a dedicated space intended for the biological sex that they are NOT. And this all stems from the ludicrous idea that 'gender' (rather than sex) means anything objective in the physical world at all. Crazy ideas (and their human hosts) always want the power to subsume rational ideas and then call themselves 'rational'. What has fuelled the crazy ideas is the conflated use of 'gender' with biological sex. 'Gender' is in large part still used on application forms, which I'm sure just empowers the aforementioned crazy ideas. What is wrong with the word 'sex'? I suppose people will just answer, 'yes please'!
It's sobering to think how much of the present mess stems from a deliberate attempt to avoid using the word 'sex' because it made people giggle or get embarrassed. Ruth Bader Ginsberg for e.g. chose to refer to 'gender' otherwise she worried Judges wouldn't listen to her. I think the PC of GR goes way beyond mere belief and actually states that it is possible to 're-assign' the 'attributes' of your sex. I think that is very dangerous territory. It can't possibly refer to flesh and blood so it can only refer to irrelevant externalities such as hair, make up and dresses. None of which turn a man into a woman.
I was interested in the phrase "physiological or other attributes of sex" and could not track it back any further than the The Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999.
Am I right in thinking that the 1999 Statutory Instrument was introduced to comply with *Judgment of the Court of 30 April 1996. - P v S and Cornwall County Council. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Industrial Tribunal, Truro - United Kingdom. - Equal treatment for men and women - Dismissal of a transsexual. - Case C-13/94.*?
(I looked all this up in Dec 2022 and IANAL so I might have got that wrong.)
That Judgement does not mention "physiological or other attributes of sex" but it does include the phrases "physical characteristics", "physical attributes" and "belonging physically to one sex".
"Physiological" is more specific because it refers to bodily functions rather than form, eg. the ability to breastfeed, rather than possession of breasts; the ability to impregnate, rather than possession of a penis. It therefore encompasses "modifications of function" by whatever means they are achieved.
Going back through the earlier European cases, the other attributes cited in evidence as being altered include a mixture of alterations of:
- appearance, eg. a woman adopting stereotypical, culturally-specific masculine hair cuts, clothing, etc.
- behaviours of the person, ie. a woman performing stereotypical, culturally-specific ways of walking, talking, jobs and roles.
- documentation, eg. registering a change of name with utility companies
- the behaviour of others, eg. friends, family, work colleagues using opposite-sex pronouns.
That is from memory and I have not looked at the judgements since Dec 2022, so apologies if I have missed anything or misremembered but I think that is where we need to go to try to work out what was meant by "other attributes" of sex when it first popped up in UK legislation in 1999.
I think your knowledge is way more extensive than mine! It is indeed interesting to track this. The seeds were sown a long time ago, and very few noticed.
I really need to go back and look at the cases again. At the time I was curious about what was being referred to by the two parts to the phrase "physiological and other attributes" and it looks like I did not make any notes - which I am kicking myself for now!
Lesbians choose to deliberately adopt a masculine appearance by ingesting other lesbian's body fluids - it is called PGSISD - and is the reason so many old dykes look like old blokes - and act like sex mad teenage boys.
Ellen DeGeneris being a perfect example. Clare Balding will look like a little old Irish man in a few years as the effects of her lesbian activitity progresses.
These old rough dykes can be seen anywhere lesbains gather.
PGSISD is just as effective as the hormones MtF and FtMs take but no one likes to think of dykes sticking their tongues up other women's vaginas.
A few years ago the Big Brother telly program had a truly obnoxious dyke who claimed she could make any straight woman into a dyke after just one sexual episode.
One US school systee had to clamp down on black lesbains who were forcing younger girls to lick the older one's vagians to make them instantly addicted to vaginals secretions.
One British women wrote of being at a girl's school where each evening older girls would foce younger ones to lick their vaginas to make them lesbian - no wonder public schools are such hothouses of perversion!
No doubt homosexual's secretions are just as addictive and eventually make homos look like limpwristed faggots.
How many politicians and churchmen had been exposed as addicted to same sex body sexcretions?
Using "gender" in application to humans is the origin of all of the confusion itself.
Dropping that word solves a good deal of the problems.
It's a linguistics term for words only with no relevance to humans. John Money knew that.
https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/gender-has-no-application-to-humans
Absolutely. Thinking back to the make-up, dresses, and long blonde whigs I wore once (as a performing musician I might add!), I never once thought I was closer to being a woman, even if I wanted to be. Humanity is very strange, and this whole 'gender-affirming' thing is one of the strangest departures from sense I can think of.
However many old dykes have found that ingesting other women's vaginal secretions does turn them into old blokes - as can be seen at any dyke bar or club.
What the Gov't must do is get the NHS to start REPARATIVE THERAPY to eradicate lesbianism and homosexuality.
The "attributes of sex" do refer to flesh and blood, not irrelevant externalities - para 200 of the SC judgment specifies the attributes are "necessarily biological." This must mean clothing, hairstyles, pronouns etc are excluded. This means that some previous cases have been incorrectly decided, I think. But it also appears to make the PC of GA vacuous, as biological sex cannot be changed by any process yet known. At the very most it can only cover full surgical interventions - i.e. transsexuals in the sense that was understood in 2019 and before.
It would really help if the EA defined this! I think some other cases do say it refers to hair and clothes etc
Agreed. Since those other cases were in lower courts, we now know(?) that they were wrong. But what is right? What *does* it all mean?
I don't think it should cause too much trouble. You are the female sex if your body was organised around the production of large gametes; male if small gametes. This is instantly observable in 99.9% of people.
and the .01 percent are transsxuals.
100% of females - apart from the few born maimed - are designed to enjoye penile penetration and childbearing but lesbians perversion alters their minds to deny this natural function in favour of pretending to be male and mimicking penile penetration by use of the many rubbed dildos seen in the sex adverts.
I once spoke with a man who worked at Dunlop's Rubber factory in Harrogate and when no foreman was about he used to create huge dildos with the liquid rubber and had a ready market for them among Harrogate's dykes. They liked them with really big knob ends.
There really is no way to define this in reality because "transsexuals" do not exist.
The law is based on a lie, and laws cannot turn lies into truth. Forcing a lie into society only results in chaos. So the whole thing has to be thrown out. The paragraphs, subsections, acts, etc. really don't matter. None of it is real.
Then how do we protect religion under the EA? that isn't 'real'. People are allowed to believe mad things and can't be sacked or abused for it. What no one can do is change sex. Or force anyone else to worship their gods.
Religion aka the Bible says homosexuals and lesbians are perverts and will be slaughtered when Jesus returns - is that what you meant?
I grew up in a town where there is a Jesuit seminary full of homos and a now-closed Catholic college has a website with the young homos reminiscing about all the homosexuality they revelled in.
GOOD KING HENRY 8th slaughtered thousands of homo and lesbian monks and nuns when he abolished Catholicism back in 1539.
Very easily--one can join a religion.
It is possible to join the Anglican Church, Catholic Church, or Mormon Church, or become a Buddhist or Sikh. One can change religions and people have done so through whatever the process is.
I'm an atheist, I will not defend any particular religions teachings because I think they are all false. But one can change or join a religion. This is a basic constitutional right guaranteed in the First Amendment in the United States.
Nobody can change sex. No male can become female because it is literally impossible, and that is the core of the "trans" agenda. It's not a religion. It's a medical, legal, and media agenda that leads to men in women's prisons.
A male Buddhist or Catholic still plays male sports or has to go to a male prison. It doesn't upend society and cause adults to to get plastic surgery.
This isn't just about believing mad things. "Trans" is not just belief--that's what everyone must understand. This is laws, documents, health insurance, plastic surgery, sports, prisons, lawsuits, changing rooms--it is simply never ending. It cannot be tolerated. Men will not be able to just "pretend" that they're women. They are funded by billions in activist money, pressure groups, law firms to force this in every aspect of society.
Once that is understood, it can be stopped. I think you think this is just about fashion and hair. It never was.
Out in the real world Homos and Dykes need reparative therapy to cure themo of their perversions.
It is amusing to read just how many closet homosexuals pursue transwomen...
and how many butch dykes pursue pretty young girls.
This is very clearly (sorry!) set out and I’ve tried to disagree but I can’t. Often I think of women denied the vote - did any women try to vote but was found out? If so, did they just look at her or ask for BC. Which in those days waa rock solid absolute truth. But we aren’t in that world now and as you say who has the stomach to gate keep bad male actors who could have changed BCs. “But how do we justify exclusion of a woman on the basis of passing? Why doesn’t that lead to justifying the inclusion of a man because he does?” I wondered that too and was actually really aghast at that para on passing (a gender ideology concept if ever I heard one) - as you say, how are decisions to be made about whether a woman looks “too masculine” to be accepted in the women’s facility. As for the second part of that, didn’t the J say women need protecting from men in a way that they don’t from women. The power imbalance and stats bear out that passing is not a concept that is taken into account when EA2010 Exceptions are in operation. Really the Q is as you say: how do we prevent self-ID happening anyway for men with GRC?. I’d add that even if we got rid of GRA does the same problem arise, unless we need men to go round with ID that gives their sex?? Agree absolutely that it’s absurd to give any ground to the idea of gender reassignment as meaning anything at all when it requires no action; and belief would cover it and provide protection.
thanks for the thoughtful reply. I obviously agree that women and men pose asymetrical risks to other women; men are at very little risk of harm from a woman in their spaces, even one on testosterone. But the SC did not mention that in this particular example (not sure if they did elsewhere??); they framed this as an issue of 'passing' which I think undermines their purported clarity about sex is sex is sex.
The article was superb, but I think it reckless generalisation to say that "men are at very little risk of harm from a woman in their spaces". There are weak men and strong women. There are principled men and unprincipled women. I know a physically very strong man who has been bullied for years by a physically average woman who is exceptionally, brutally, vicious. If you said the risk was rare, rather than small, I would agree.
I am afraid I will continue to disagree. It is a fact that men pose a significantly greater risk to women than women do to men. That you are aware of some exceptions to this does not make my reliance on fact ‘reckless’.
young girls and straight women are at great risk from dykes just as homos target boys and youths.
My objection had no implications for action or rules, which should indeed be based on the typical, not the exception. You could yet rely better on fact with the help of qualifiers such as 'usually', typically.... Anyway you're doing such a good job I shouldn't be quarrelling. In the words of another Sarah, "Don't overthink it, Richard"
Thank you for your kind words and you are right - it is better not to deal in absolutes as there are usually exceptions!
In the case of changing sex, there are no exceptions. No one has gone from male to female even if they pass, and essentially none do without blockers, considering all relevant factors (voice, hands, feet, male ego). That includes Robert Ryan "Blaire" White, who makes YouTube videos about his penis and testicles.
The reason why there is still confusion about sex vs gender is that gender has no application to humans.
Using the word itself is the very source of confusion, which was John Money's intent:
"However, adults with gender dysphoria exist. Those who wish to adopt sex stereotypes of the sex opposite to their own should not be abused, harassed or sacked for this. I think they can be protected by a belief in ‘gender identity’."
There is no such thing as "gender dysphoria" or "gender identity."
No male can feel female. This is primarily fetish and delusion. The only thing that will work is a complete rejection of this.
That is the hard truth everyone will eventually arrive to because any entertainment of this lie leads to chaos, which we see everywhere.
https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/trans-is-a-fraudand-it-always-has
What a breathtakingly brilliant and thought- provoking piece: thank you! You put into words what previously had been a confused collection of ideas I struggled to express. This is an area where there is far less room for compromise than people realise. As we say in Scotland, "Ye cannie ride two horses wi' one arse."
Thank you! So few people appear to understand the simple physics of the two horses, one arse dilemma.
Gender Dysphoria is a symptom, not a condition. It is the subjective feelings of the patient with no clinical evidence to support it. It is absolutely no justification for allowing the patient to change sex and reflect that on identification documents. The PC of GR needs to be removed. Gender Dysphoria can be protected under the PC of disability. A belief that one has a Gender Identity can be protected under the PC of Religion or Belief. The belief that one has a Gender Identity at variance with ones's sex could again come under the PC of Disability as a mental health issue.
I prefer a belief. I don’t think it should be a disability - what reasonable adjustments then flow from that? But yes, let people who want to benefit from that establish it. It makes sense to me to treat belief in gender identity as a quasi religious belief. We allow people to believe all kinds of mad things - why not this? Doesn’t impact the reality of sex.
Agreed. Cross-dressing in the workplace is not a reasonable adjustment. ;-)
Define cross dressing. I wear trousers all the time. May I? I could not give a damn if a man wants to wear a skirt. What is the issue if he does? Is this part of his feral sexual fantasy that he is actively masturbating as he does? If he isn’t visibly aroused may he be left to get on with his day?
You’re not attempting to be perceived as a man. Pippa Bunce was trying to be perceived as a woman.
So what? He isn't. He can try as much as he likes. No one else has to go along with it. But if he wants to wear a body con dress and fishnets to work, provided that's allowed by his company's dress code, crack on mate. I won't take him seriously as a professional but that's the choice he makes.
Just to clarify, I wouldn't take ANYONE who wears that kind of outfit to work seriously - man, woman or non binary otherkin. But its not my business to police what people wear, unless its unsafe, unhygienic or very seriously offensive.
This is getting dangerously close to trying to police thoughts.
How? You have just denied it’s a condition? A symptom of what? Protecting it as a belief would surely be preferable to you rather than cementing it objectively as a disability? Have you thought this through? Adults can do what they like with their bodies: no in can change sex.
Mental health conditions such as ASD and Schizophrenia are registered as disabilities in the workplace. It was Az Hakeem who said GD was a symptom, not a condition. Isn’t believing you are born in the wrong body a mental health issue?
DM3-3 was created by a team of 9 psychiatrists/psychologists under Pritzker: a sort of committe making suggestions on diagnoses and symptoms. They admitted that few of the diagnoses had any underlying clinical basis.
For the purposes of removing the PC of GR we could just protect the belief/delusion that they have a GI and one at variance with their sex under the PC of Religion or Belief and then let the transgenderists argue for it being a mental health symptom/condition worthy of being registered as a disability?
These are disabilities because they are mental delusions.
Schizophrenics do not have the civil right or legal right to force doctors, or anyone else, to "affirm" their delusions. They are told the voices aren't real, they're not Napoleon, and they get real treatment.
The same must be for men who think they're women. Anything else results in the chaos we see because societies cannot function on lies.
The last paragraph is our strategy: no PC of GR, no falsification of the sex marker on ID documents. If the 'transgenderists' get it categorised as a disability what will the "reasonable adjustments" be in the workplace?
They have been arguing the case for "reasonable adjustments", hijacking the language of provisions for people with disabilities, since at least 2017:
Trans-inclusive Workplaces
Guidelines for Employers and Businesses
Authors: Prof. Stephen Whittle and Dr. Lewis Turner
This publication has been produced with financial support from the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union, the Open Society Foundation, and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and Transgender Europe, and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission, the Open Society Foundation, or the Dutch Government.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240206020959/https://tgeu.org/inclusiveworkplaces/
What reasonable adjustments do schizophrenics and anorexics get in the workplace? Can they get doctors to give them surgeries to go along with their delusions or file lawsuits if they don't call them what they want?
Don’t be silly. They will be allowed to reasonable time off to seek treatment or to recuperate from treatment.
There is also the issue, that some are making much of, that the SC did not specify what it meant by "biological sex". IMHO it would not have made any difference if the SC had provided a definition because the very same people would have disputed it.
Going right back to the first case at the ECHR there have been attempts to include "psychological sex", "sex identity" or "sexual identity" (meaning what is now referred to as "gender identity" rather than "sexual orientation") as part of the definition of biological sex, ie. "predetermined at birth".
CASE OF REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 9532/81)
JUDGMENT, STRASBOURG 17 October 1986
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57564%22]}
12. At birth the applicant possessed all the *physical and biological characteristics* of a child of the *female sex*, and was consequently recorded in the register of births as a female, under the name Brenda Margaret Rees. However, already from a tender age the child started to exhibit *masculine behaviour* and was ambiguous in appearance. In 1970, after learning that the *transsexual* state was *a medically recognised condition*, she sought treatment. She was prescribed methyl testosterone (a hormonal treatment) and started to develop *secondary male characteristics*.
14. Surgical treatment for *physical sexual conversion* began in May 1974 with a bilateral masectomy and led to the removal of *feminine external characteristics*.
16. On 10 November 1980 his solicitor wrote to the Registrar General making a formal request under Section 29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, on the ground that there had been "a mistake in completing the Register". In support of his request, the applicant submitted a medical report by Dr. C.N. Armstrong. The report stated that, in Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, of *the four criteria of sex* - namely *chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, apparent sex (external genitalia and body form) and psychological sex,* the last was the most important as it determined the individual’s social activities and role in adult life, and it was also, in his view, pre-determined at birth, though not evident until later in life. Dr. Armstrong considered that *as the applicant’s psychological sex was male, he should be assigned male.*
On 25 November the Registrar General refused the application to alter the Register. He stated that the report on the applicant’s *psychological sex* was not decisive and that, "in the absence of any medical report on the other agreed criteria *(chromosomal sex, gonadal sex and apparent sex)*", he was "unable to consider whether an error (had been) made at birth registration in that the child was not of the sex recorded". No further evidence in support of the applicant’s request was subsequently submitted.
========
As far as European Law and UK Law are concerned this looks like the first attempt to enshrine "gender identity" as the determiner of legal sex, although back in 1986 it was referred to as "psychological sex". Forty years on, they have not given up trying.
I assumed the SC rely on the April Ashley case which set out the determinants of sex and those haven’t changed. But interesting case, thanks for posting.
Oh yes! Thank you. They do mention that case.
54. The common law of England and Wales did not recognise the possibility of a person becoming a different gender from their gender at birth. In the well-known case of Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83, the High Court declared that a marriage was null and void where both parties were biological males but one had undergone gender reassignment. Ormrod J said that over a very large area, the law is indifferent to sex. In other areas, such as insurance and pension schemes, there was nothing to prevent the parties to a contract from agreeing that the person concerned should be treated as a man or a woman, as the case may be: p 105. But marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman and, in the context of marriage, even if not for other purposes, the person was still a biological male. That conclusion that a person could not change sex was applied in the criminal law in R v Tan [1983] QB 1053.
. . . and . . . they tried it on in Corbett v Corbett but were not successful:
James Comyn Q.C. and/Leonard Lewis Q.C. for the respondent.
"Sex is the sum of a number of things both external and internal and pertaining to both body and mind. Consideration must be given to hormonal make up, the
person's psychological condition and chromosomal factors."
However, the Corbett v Corbett judgement sees the psychological element as being an "anomaly" and an "abnormality".
"There was general agreement among all the doctors on the basic principles and the fundamental scientific facts. Anomalies of sex may be divided into two broad divisions, those cases which are primarily psychological in character, and those in which there are developmental abnormalities in the anatomy of the reproductive system (including the external genitalia). Two kinds of psychological abnormality are recognised, the transvestite and the transsexual."
Later:
"I must now deal with the anatomical and physiological anomalies of the sex organs, although I think that this part of the evidence is of marginal significance only in the present case. In other cases, it may be of cardinal importance. All the medical witnesses accept that there are, at least, four criteria for assessing the sexual condition of an individual. These are -
(i) Chromosomal factors.
(ii) Gonadal factors (ie presence or absence of testes or ovaries). (iii) Genital factors (including internal sex organs).
(iv) Psychological factors."
However, the judgement on "psychological factors" was not that April Ashley (Corbett) was "psychologically female" or "psychologically male" but that he was "psychologically transsexual", ie. a male with the psychological condition of believing himself to be the opposite sext.
"My conclusions of fact on this part of the case can be summarised, therefore, as follows. The respondent has been shown to have XY chromosomes and, therefore, to be of male chromosomal sex; to have had testicles prior to the operation and, therefore, to be of male gonadal sex; to have had male external genitalia without 46 any evidence of internal or external female sex organs and, therefore, to be of male genital sex; and psychologically to be a transsexual."
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Corbett-v-Corbett-judgment.pdf
Interesting to see that this was at a time when everyone understood that "transsexual man" meant a male. It was the same in the late 1970's. I wonder when the deliberately confusing swap happened and males became known as "transsexual women"?
Sarah, did you hear the Lords debate yesterday when Baroness Faulkner said that the EHRC guidance was only preliminary and that they will be consulting with all those affected by the SC ruling while producing their full guidance? There were so many ‘ladies’ expressing concern for trans women, one said she has a ‘trans child’ I found the whole thing rather worrying! I don’t think we are anyone at the end of this battle, have a listen
https://x.com/teepstweets/status/1918200869041930361?s=61&t=92SUiLLbQeh6hjWQeOtrww
We definitely are no where near the end. The guidance will have to deal with what happens when someone provides falsified documents and how service providers actually go about excluding the masculine woman. Those are the 2 key problem areas for me.
I have doubts that a woman who wishes to pass as a man would attempt to force her way into a women-only space, as that would concede that she is in fact a woman. I expect the more likely problem to be a 'non-binary' identified female on testosterone asserting her right to go wherever she pleases, and getting pushback from other women. But even that will be a minor issue compared to the men who will continue to try it on.
REPARATIVE THERAPY is needed to cure homosexuals and lesbians of their perversions.
If any refuse to unrego therapy they must be chemically or surgically castrated.
Meanwhile out in the real world - the Gov't has facilitated and condoned the spread of homosexuality and lesbianism by allowing single sex marriages.
The High Court decision means the NHS must now have a nationwide program of REPARATIVE THERAPY TO CURE HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS.
Th High Court decision is rubbish but taken at face value it means that now the Gov't must act to ban same sex weddings and family units such as Elton John's as being two male perverts - and the same applies the many same sex women pairs such as Clare Balding's.
If there are only two sexes - presumably based on physical sex then obviously - any 'female' having sex with another female is a pervert - or unnatural as the Bible says just as it says men who lie with men will be lsuaghtered when Jesus returns and on Judgment Day all resurrected male and female perverts will be totally and instantly destroyed after being reminded of their life of perversity.
Similarly the Gov't must immediately order all single sex schools, clubs and organisations to immediately enrol enough other sex people to ensure each class or group is 50/50% male and female to ensure that there is little opportunity for lesbians to seduce younger girls and homos to seduce younger boys.
The basis of this rampant homosexuality and lesbianism is due to PGSISD that arises when single sexes are in close proximity in restricted situations.
So is the answer to eliminate the GRA or wait for more case law to refine decision making around it in the hope that it may provide greater clarity about how to manage Gendered issues ?
Either repeal/reform existing law so it is accessible and clear OR expect another 10 years of piecemeal challenges via tribunals at great emotional and financial cost. I know which option I prefer.
Agreed, the former
Hi Sarah
Thanks for this and very interesting points. I am pondering further and will get back to you with my comments.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/if-i-cannot-inspire-love-part-1
Dusty
Thank you.
"But ‘victory’ will not be achieved until we can stop agonising and litigating about all this, and rest easy in the knowledge that the law recognises that sex is real and it matters, and that those who prefer to express a gender identity have the freedom to do so, within carefully defined and enforced parameters."
Referendum.
Societies function by acknowledging material differences to structure education, work, safety, and privacy.
Our institutions were built to accommodate and protect based on the physical differences between the sexes, not feelings or self-perception. That doesn’t mean denying anyone dignity as a human being, but reorganising society around self-declared identity rather than sex is a radical act! It deserves scrutiny, accountability, and more than anything, it deserves a democratic mandate.
Let the public decide those parameters.
I think I would rather have a public inquiry followed by a carefully drafted law. We won’t get either of course.
No law can turn a lie into a truth. This is the fundamental issue.
I agree. But I have no quarrel with those who wish to believe in gender identity, provided they aren’t demanding I agree they have changed sex. We have to allow a wide degree of latitude to how adults present themselves, otherwise you may well be avoiding chaos but you are inviting in authoritarianism and repression - which I will reject and fight against.
I understand where you're coming from, but it will never be enough if the legal and medical authorities grant someone "gender identity." They will want birth certificate/drivers license/passport changes, hormones, surgeries, sports, prisons, pronouns, lawsuits, changing--it will never end.
The point is to force others to say that they have literally changed sex. There is no "gender identity" without that because that is the raison d'étre. It always has been and once that is understood, we can see what's happening.
Now if this is just about hair and clothing, that's what needs to be said. There is already a wide degree of latitude for that. Nobody minds if a man is wearing nail polish. But that is not what they're looking for. This is a legal, medical, media agenda.
In terms of authoritarianism and repression--you're in the UK. You live in a country where women are sent to jail for tweet for far longer than men who are convicted of rape and child p0rn graphy possession. The police visit people at 1:00 am and 2:00 to talk about social media posts about immigration that cause anxiety.
It seems like the UK has already devolved into repression. If the issue is free speech, there's a whole other conversation to be had.
If people can be told that they can't get lobotomies or healthy leg removal, then men can be told they're not women.
Then they can be told ‘no’. I don’t think this difficult. It is been a problem because of the systemic capture of public bodies.
That was always the goal of this lie.
Opening the floodgate at all leads to public capture. That is the inexorable result of allowing "gender dysphoria" as a valid diagnosis as confirmed by doctors.
There is no other way this could have gone if this is considered valid in any way.
Either you are a woman, or you aren’t. If you have surgically reassigned your genitalia, every other single cell in your body will be screaming out the exact opposite. If you are still confused, I recommend treatment in accordance with the DSM-V: the diagnostic services manual on psychiatric conditions, specifically Gender Dysphoria.
"Surgical reassignment" is nothing more than mutilation. Nobody is allowed lobotomies or healthy leg removal no matter how mentally unstable they are. The same thing for someone who wants to be someone else, specifically the opposite sex. It's not possible, and it opens the door to chaos in society.