Orthodoxy they disagree with
Which counts, reality or dogma?
MG: In LGBAs own evidence they are forced to push back on othodoxy that they disagree with. We note that CC was satisfied that LGBA was engaged in political purposes but were ancillary. MM do not have to prove that CC was wrong.
CC view is that more evidence has been made available since decision. It is clear that LGBA has purposes that are political. These are not ancillary. LGBA was established for lobbying and political purposes. They suggested investigation against Stonewall. It is clear beyond doubt that they want to change policies that are relevant to GC beliefs. BJ said in this tribunal that they were building an org that fought against GI beliefs. It was said in the tribunal that self-ID erases same-sex attraction.
The distinction matters here because whether or not LGBA can be defined as a charity is what the hearing is about, but all the same it never stops being odd that they are having to defend themselves for knowing the difference between women and men. It never stops being odd that all this is about a mass delusion dressed up as a human rights issue. It’s not a view that men are not women, it’s just the reality. Try telling a bull elephant in musth that he’s a cow. (Kidding. Don’t try telling a bull elephant in musth anything. Stay far away.)
LGBA views must be of benefit. We say there is no concensus re this. The law is undergoing an ongoing process and for current purposes the law is not as clear as LGBA says it is. Re EA section 7. Re PC of gender reassignment. Sex isn’t used in exclusively biological sense.
It’s bizarre to try to alter reality via laws. Theocracies of course do it all the time, but it’s still odd. A gender theocracy is really odd.
In terms of using Equality law, it is not as clear as they say it is. Re education public. LGBA approaches this with one point of view only. KH and BJ said LGBA would educate the public using GC beliefs as facts. BJ said education must be based on facts – shouldn’t say boys can be girls and girls can be boys. We say this is not neutral. On the totality of the evidence LGBA are saying they will be putting forward the GC view as the factual view. The evidence shows they haven’t done much outside the GC side of education.
The GC view is the factual view. People can have fantasies about who and what they are, but the world in general has to keep a grip on what’s fantasy and what’s real. It’s not “factual” that boys can be girls any more than it’s factual that parrots can be mastodons.
Are LGBA views of the consensus? They put forward their GC position and so can’t say that there is a common understanding. This is a paradigm case. We say that the chosen approach of LGBA is fundamentally confrontation[al] and unpleasant.
The consensus and the common understanding are one kind of thing, and the reality is another. The consensus can be wrong. The common understanding can be wrong. A public opinion poll isn’t a biology textbook.
In the past, courts and tribunals have accepted the anti-scientific view that tomatoes are vegetables, and that whales are fish. Let’s hope they don’t extend that to the idea that men can be women.
Of course, in both of those cases, money was involved. Protecting business, or taxing business, or some other exchange of common currency. In this case? Well, there is money involved – all those people making money selling shit to trans kids, things like binders and other things – and the money for the surgeries and hormones. Still, that may not be big enough to convince the courts.
Putting courts or other decision-making bodies in the position of having to decide what a woman is strikes me of the courts in this country that have to adjudicate which religions and religious practices are ‘valid’.
Teach the controversy!
EA 2010 section 7 is interpreted differently by the trans community and general public. According to the trans community, the use of “gender reassignment” is interpreted as change in gender identity. The actual law refers to being recognised as the opposite sex, with or without surgery. It doesn’t give males the same rights as women; just the right to live as a woman. Similarly, a person can live as a parent of a child, but only legal adoption/guardianship gives a person legal rights over the child. How people choose to live does not afford them rights.
The trans community insist that section 7 all but gives a trans person the right to self-ID.