On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <
roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This question is inspired by the ongoing ET case I mentioned elsewhere, ongoing in Dundee ET, (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024.
The doctor who is second respondent in that case did not dispute that they were born male and have the anatomical and physiological body of a normal human male. But they asserted that they were a biological female. They were perhaps referring to their (female?) brain being paramount but this was not explicit.
How does the law decide whether a person is male or female when this is disputed? Is the person's current birth certificate (as provided at
birth or under the GRA) conclusive? Does the law recognise the
distinction between biological sex and legal gender, or is their no
such distinction under the law?
The ET seems to be planning to deal with contradiction between the
claimant's statement that the second respondent is a a man, and the
second respondent's own statement under oath that he is a woman by
asking for expert evidence.
Is the sex of a person a matter of fact to be decided by the court on whatever evidence the parties choose to present? Or is there a legally correct way ascertaining it?
I imagine it will depend, like many things in law, on the context.
For example, is a person "a child"? The answer will depend on why
the question is being asked. There is no one single "true" answer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)