But to be clear, my complaint against Hodge et al has always been that their judgment is an incompetent charter for transphobic bigotry, and that I honestly don’t care one bit about their individual characters or souls.

while from 1972 continental European systems started saying you can only be granted legal recognition on the proviso that you destroy that potential.

I think there’s something to be said here - I have a thing coming out next year that I hope goes some way towards saying it - about the fact that up to about 1970 the Anglo-American medico-legal question was can trans people be allowed to destroy their reproductive potential,

I think the most important things to me are my own thoughts and the people I interact with, and I’m not sure I really care very much what container those things happen in.

I might just be feeling grumpy, but it’s never struck me as a very important question in terms of what I do with my time each day. Like, as far as I’m concerned this is material reality, and I’m not sure what it would change to learn that that wasn’t technically true.

I am reminded of Bhatt’s observation that ‘I did not sprout tits through my sheer mastery of the social fabric’.

Sex magic is incredibly important to the cis.

Can in the abstract but apparently didn’t for the particular obviously on hormones trans woman being monstered before the tribunal

Perhaps we could just have a system where, for example, trans people can participate in gendered activities such as sport if their hormones have been measured at a certain level for a pre-determined length of time. That might be the kind of solution that sustainably mollifies cisgender revulsion.

🫡🫡🫡

I think we call this contempt in the face of the court.

I think you can tell someone to do this in court and the judge will merely state in the final judgment that this was speech that would have been impermissible outside of court. Actually cutting it off in court is, however, probably a different story.

And I don’t think that could really be said out loud by a judge in 2025.

I’d like to maintain my earlier position that I am not doing doctrine here, but this is sort of what I was getting at in my OP. That the judge appears to have casually assumed that the legally relevant ‘physiological changes’ involved in transition are just ‘do you have intact reproductive organs?’

This is the power of psychiatric pathologisation

Eubulides’ bald man paradox, but for transmasc hair loss.

Yeah but it’s also extremely squeamish about exactly how though isn’t it? I imagine most judges don’t want to get into the business of literally instructing someone to cut her cock off.