World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

I know exactly what volchista is saying, and it’s not what you’re saying. volchista’s point is that previous to the GRA, everyone knew what a woman is, and since the introduction of the GRA, Government are mandating what a woman is, which presents a problem for those people who know what a woman is, and it isn’t what other people think a woman is. It’s a problem because those people were previously able to discriminate against people based upon their belief that those people are not women. Which is why the GRA was enacted - to include people who weren’t previously protected from unlawful discrimination on the ground of gender or sex.

With the introduction of the GRA, nobody has to care what anyone else’s beliefs are in regards to gender or sex, they are protected from discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services by law. That’s why in the Forstater case - gender critical beliefs being recognised in law as a protected belief, has the effect of not only protecting those who hold those beliefs from discrimination, it also protects from discrimination those who don’t hold gender critical beliefs. I’ve no doubt Forstater was aware of this being one of the outcomes of having gender critical beliefs recognised as a protected belief, but it stands to reason her beliefs were more important to her than what anyone else believes!

That’s why nobody has to care what Sal, as the CEO of a company which was providing a service to the public which was found liable for unlawful discrimination, believes about gender or sex. Sal’s personal beliefs are irrelevant, Sal is a separate legal entity to the legal entity that is Giggle for Girls. Giggle was the legal entity found liable, the Courts don’t care for Sal’s opinion on the matter, and plaintiffsplaining the law or what laws did or didn’t apply in that particular case, to a Judge, was never going to be a well-advised legal strategy.

It being a legal fiction means literally nothing. I don’t know why people imagine pointing out that it’s a legal fiction is any sort of an argument. A legal fiction is just a tool in law to achieve a desired outcome. Saves having to rewrite reams of legislation for one thing which is I have no doubt something which politicians of the day, weren’t too keen on doing. A legal fiction is quite useful in that regard - works the same way as the legal fiction of the presumption of paternity.

They weren’t passing a law that says anyone can change sex, they passed a law that meant the State recognised in law that a person has changed sex, same as the State recognises in law that persons are entitled to enter into marriage without distinction as to their sex (where it didn’t before), and so politicians didn’t have to go having their staff trawl through Irish case law to find cases which might pose an issue being brought up in the Senate by some unhinged arsehole opposed to the legislation, in much the same way as when it was proposed to alter Art. 41 to recognise families other than those based upon marriage, the usual rogues gallery brought up nonsense about threesomes and polygamy and all the rest of it.

There were no complaints from the same people about the many, many legal fictions predicated upon traditional marriage then, unsurprisingly because the need to maintain a traditional view of marriage outweighed any concerns about legal fiction 🙄 That their arguments were based on bullshìt, didn’t appear to be much of a concern either, and the same is true in this case where people’s concerns about the need to maintain a traditional view of social hierarchy outweigh any concerns that their arguments are not based upon science or medicine or anything else, rather their arguments are based upon their own bullshìt beliefs, which nobody else can be obligated to accept, let alone act as though they share that person’s beliefs, thereby giving them legitimacy that in reality, they simply do not deserve.

I’ve heard incel types making similar arguments about women wearing makeup, that it is somehow ‘a deception’… that’s as far as I’ve ever gotten because the foundation of the argument is so stupid it’s not even worth entertaining.

Was that before, or after women started wearing trousers and driving vehicles? Easy way to put a stop to that so everyone can be sure that if a person is wearing a dress while driving, they’re probably a man, like the many, many thousands of men who were wearing trousers while they offered children a lift (the man in a white van isn’t a popular social trope for nothing), as opposed to the idea that the Judge had in mind which wasn’t even a necessary point to make, when the child in that case had already explained her reasoning:

One only has to ask oneself the simple question: would an 11 year old girl have willingly entered your car had you presented as a man? The answer is that obviously she would not.

https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2023/10/18/hma-v-andrew-miller

The girl told officers that she accepted a lift because she believed Miller - who was wearing women's clothing - was non-threatening.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/andrew-miller-jailed-for-20-years-for-abducting-and-sexually-assaulting-girl-in-scottish-borders-12983829

It has nothing to do with your ideas of evolutionary psychology either (which has its own issues), or anything to do with studies which found that under certain conditions, women are better at recognising the differences between men’s and women’s faces than men. There are far more rational explanations for the phenomenon than any allusions to evolutionary psychology or the idea of only women feeling the need to keep children safe!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54074-5

Familiarity, as opposed to biology, provides a more rational, and indeed useful, explanation.

Thousands of words battling to overturn Thousands of years of human evolution.

Man-made laws have nothing whatsoever to do with human evolution. They have historically had everything to do with maintaining an imaginary ideal of social order, by exclusion.

Very few people, evidently, give a tuppeny thought about human biology or any of the rest of that nonsense as though it is the only means by which humans are classified (by humans, because other animals definitely don’t appear to give a shìt about classifying humans as humans themselves do), and that’s why arguments to human biology as though the concept exists independently of reality are the academic BS nonsense that nobody has to care about, they only need concern themselves with law, and I don’t mean in the Biblical sense where it is suggested that man evolved from himself through divine intervention 😂

Hey, Steve Davis IS interesting.

I do genuinely like these

Cass on Woman's hour today including some comments on the BMA's position.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023q2z

You'll still find lunatics that'll support WPATH.

Isn't she married to a trans man? it would seems that she has a vested interest in confirmation bias regards her research. I guess in the absense of confirmation, there's always 'faith'.

This is an ideologue permitted to perform Joseph Mengele levels of experimentation on children, her fitness to practicse should be in question after that admission. Will it be though? Of course not.

Once again, do not trust the 'experts' without taking a good hard look at exactly who the experts you're expected to trust are.

An article from an investigative, “Private Eye” style website claims to have had access to Imane Khelif’s medical dossier, confirming that the DSD concerned is indeed the 5 ARD one, which causes male foetuses to develop a vaginal “pouch” (but no uterus or ovaries) and thus often to be wrongly assigned as female at birth. The child then becomes visibly male (as per their genetic makeup) at adolescence.

it’s also a very damning article concerning Khelif’s personal actions, accusing them of making false allegations about team members who have refused to go along with the pretence that K is female, to the extent of having someone imprisoned on false charges of abuse.

What’s so shocking about it all to me is the absolute determination to prevent anyone from deviating from the official line despite the implausibility of it being true.

I was banned from this thread at one point just for quoting an article that said IK was male. I hadn’t said it myself, just quoted a reputable source (a developmental scientist) but that was enough.

We’ll see if it happens again - I don’t really know for sure what the new “more relaxed” rules say.

You’re right but I just thought the two had been merged, as this is the thread that came up when I searched for sports. Clearly the search function is slightly worse than useless!