Alessandra we’re either having a public conversation where we go through our reasoning or we’re not. I know you know this law. You know I know the explanatory notes. If I can’t walk through my reasoning without you feeling the need to remind me that you know all this already then we can’t have a conversation.
Alessandra we’re either having a public conversation where we go through our reasoning or we’re not. I know you know this law. You know I know the explanatory notes. If I can’t walk through my reasoning without you feeling the need to remind me that you know all this already then we can’t have a conversation.
So do you think the explanatory notes misrepresent the law? They make it clear one does never need to undergo medical or surgical treatment to be protected under the PC of GR if they pass. To be honest I think it is wrong, as passing is not a legal criterion, but it is true that there is no clarity (regardless what some captured court with no clear understanding of the law claims) on whether the intention mentioned in the section ever needs to materialise. Do you think it is clear?
To be honest, I’m just not bothered responding to you anymore. You’re rude and abrasive and then seem to assume that you can just slip back into the substance of a respectful conversation on the law. I’m just not interested in doing that with you anymore.
Michael, I think that is a fair question. The EHRC guidance makes it clear that no medical intervention is required. So how do you measure "intention" if, as in my example, the 21 YO man games the system and makes no effort to change his appearance but claims discrimination if he is not called Sheila or is not referred to as "she"?
AA makes it clear there is no need to have any medical or surgical treatment, as in para 129:
There are three important aspects of the definition in s. 7(1) of the 2010 Act. First, it refers to “a process… for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”. The underlined words make clear that the
process will not necessarily be a medical one. It may involve changing non-physiological aspects of sex, such as one’s name and/or how one dresses, or wears one’s hair, or speaks, or acts.
This and the language in paras 130-1 make it clear there is no requirement of a medical or surgical intervention for s7 to kick in, and that there is no even the requirement for the change to be permanent. Where do you derive any duty to medical/surgical modification or any duty to transform the intent into action? I do not see it
The political intention behind legislation isn’t the same as the legal meaning. We could have had a respectful conversation about this but - like I said - I’m not engaging with you anymore.
Michael, from 2018 to 2023 the DVLA issued 16,200 sex swap licences
HM Passport Office stated that more than 3,000 requests to have their sex changed on passports were approved in the period 2018 to 2022..
The real problem is that the law is being circumvented to falsify sex on ID documents. The so called "stringent" rules are not being enforced, probably because all concerned (from the GP or nurse upwards) are too terrified to question the applicant for fear of being accused of transphobia. The 'trans' lobbies have weaponised transphobia to allow people to self-id.
Debbie Hayton has said that he can lead the life he leads without a GRC. The process is not fit for purpose.
Alessandra we’re either having a public conversation where we go through our reasoning or we’re not. I know you know this law. You know I know the explanatory notes. If I can’t walk through my reasoning without you feeling the need to remind me that you know all this already then we can’t have a conversation.
So do you think the explanatory notes misrepresent the law? They make it clear one does never need to undergo medical or surgical treatment to be protected under the PC of GR if they pass. To be honest I think it is wrong, as passing is not a legal criterion, but it is true that there is no clarity (regardless what some captured court with no clear understanding of the law claims) on whether the intention mentioned in the section ever needs to materialise. Do you think it is clear?
To be honest, I’m just not bothered responding to you anymore. You’re rude and abrasive and then seem to assume that you can just slip back into the substance of a respectful conversation on the law. I’m just not interested in doing that with you anymore.
how is my question rude?
By asking it ;-)
Michael, I think that is a fair question. The EHRC guidance makes it clear that no medical intervention is required. So how do you measure "intention" if, as in my example, the 21 YO man games the system and makes no effort to change his appearance but claims discrimination if he is not called Sheila or is not referred to as "she"?
The answer to that is contained in AA and Ors v NHS.
AA makes it clear there is no need to have any medical or surgical treatment, as in para 129:
There are three important aspects of the definition in s. 7(1) of the 2010 Act. First, it refers to “a process… for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”. The underlined words make clear that the
process will not necessarily be a medical one. It may involve changing non-physiological aspects of sex, such as one’s name and/or how one dresses, or wears one’s hair, or speaks, or acts.
This and the language in paras 130-1 make it clear there is no requirement of a medical or surgical intervention for s7 to kick in, and that there is no even the requirement for the change to be permanent. Where do you derive any duty to medical/surgical modification or any duty to transform the intent into action? I do not see it
The political intention behind legislation isn’t the same as the legal meaning. We could have had a respectful conversation about this but - like I said - I’m not engaging with you anymore.
Nobody was talking about political intention. It is a matter of interpreting AA. I think all can see who has the upper hand.
Michael, from 2018 to 2023 the DVLA issued 16,200 sex swap licences
HM Passport Office stated that more than 3,000 requests to have their sex changed on passports were approved in the period 2018 to 2022..
The real problem is that the law is being circumvented to falsify sex on ID documents. The so called "stringent" rules are not being enforced, probably because all concerned (from the GP or nurse upwards) are too terrified to question the applicant for fear of being accused of transphobia. The 'trans' lobbies have weaponised transphobia to allow people to self-id.
Debbie Hayton has said that he can lead the life he leads without a GRC. The process is not fit for purpose.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/dvla-issues-thousands-of-sex-swap-driving-licences/#:~:text=A%20DVLA%20spokesman%20said:%20%E2%80%9CThere,or%20a%20gender%20recognition%20certificate.%E2%80%9D