24

As title, who are the "trans persons" the judge refers to? What is a "trans person" legally?

There is clearly a difference to those with a GRC, as the latter is said to be a subset of the wider group of "trans persons".

So, what are trans people legally? How are they identified? Is it just people who are assumed to have a GRC?

As title, who are the "trans persons" the judge refers to? What is a "trans person" legally? There is clearly a difference to those with a GRC, as the latter is said to be a subset of the wider group of "trans persons". So, what are trans people legally? How are they identified? Is it just people who are assumed to have a GRC?

5 comments

[–] pennygadget 15 points (+15|-0)

The Forstater case is important because the "trans person" she was accused of harassing was a big, bearded dude named Gregor Murray who identified as non-binary. And non-binary Murray whined about Maya's tweets making him "unsafe" while his Twitter routinely referred to women he disliked as "b!tches" & "c#nts" (keep in mind, Murray's job often put him in direct contact with vulnerable women & children in need of charity). I wish he was brought up whenever speaking about Maya's case because it makes it crystal clear that a double standard was at play and Murray was permitted to use trans as a shield to intimidate women

[–] NecessaryScene 8 points (+8|-0) Edited

What is a "trans person" legally?

It's not a concept in law.

The judge seemed to be acknowledging that many who called themselves "trans" would not be covered under "gender reassignment" in the Equality Act.

That was (nominally) intended to cover transsexuals and is worded in terms of people undergoing or intending to undergo a transition. Just calling yourself "non-binary" or dying your hair is not that.

(But the Equality Act would cover people undergoing transition with or without GRC).

[–] LilianH 19 points (+19|-0)

The guy who got her sacked was a bearded "non-binary" I think.

[–] ChairwomanMeow 22 points (+22|-0)

This is really the crux of the matter. If Stonewall has its way, it will end up as the circular definition "a trans person is someone who says they are are a trans person".

[–] calming-tea [OP] 22 points (+22|-0)

My modest proposal (but actually true, no satire) is that we need to normalize asking what people define as "trans people" before continuing any argument.

I think that question is as important as asking "what is a woman?/how to define woman". It is the side of the same coin: if we need to be able to define what is a woman to fight for women's rights, THEY need to be able to define what is "trans" to define what are trans rights.

If being trans is a matter of belief, and we know it is, then we have to push back and highlight how it is a religious talk, not science. Once they lose the science, they lose the people who just want to be nice and don't look much into it but "trust the science"