another transgender surprise.

You are continuing your argument for your own views on the subject. That is not what this is about.

Sue for what though gonegirl? Unless I have got this very wrong, didn't she simply point out that the transgender person had aliases, or was "previously known as".

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Then don't notanan. [shrug]

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gillybob I think if someone has gone through the involved rigmarole which someone has to go through to change gender, to then be referred to publicly by the sex they have left behind is harrassment and abuse.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I agree with how hard it must be to go through a gender change Gonegirl however...…

I have been married 3 times so can be traced by ANY of my former married names and my maiden name too. I have no right to pretend these people were not me and that they never existed. I have no right to have those other names erased from history.

I haven't been following the Mumsnet thread. Nothing more to say.

Your post @ 14.25 gillybob puts it rather succinctly.
You were who you were and you are who you are and that goes for every single one of us.

I agree with you notanan2 - I respect the wishes of trans people not to be called by their old name or referred to by their original gender, however you cannot re-write history. If a woman gives birth to a baby girl, then that will forever be the case, no matter if the girl subsequently transitions to the opposite gender. And while I can appreciate the frustration experienced when people get names and pronouns wrong, I think that a matter of fact correction is warranted. There is a campaign where I work, asking us to include our preferred pronouns as part of our email signature. You might think that those who do so are highlighting that they are trans and in effect that this is a form of 'outing'. However everyone is asked to do it, whether trans or cis, and if we all do it then it normalises the practice and helps people avoid misgendering others.

My pronouns are she/her

A transgender person doesn't have to go through any rigmarole, Gonegirl. All they need do is state that they are now a man/woman when they were previously a woman/man, and we must accept that. Only a small minority of transgender people ever have any drug or surgical treatment.

Wrt to OP, I've been given to think that the ruling is actually pretty hollow. A friend's opinion is that MN don't hold any identifying details about the poster and therefore the case was won by default because MN didn't bother to contest it because there's nothing to reveal.

Surely previous records aren't wiped when someone changes sex. The authorities must be able to find the person's history.

Oh, I will leave this to the many Mumsnetters there are on GN. I'm sure they know much more than I do.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Already in courts a transgender person has claimed that they were not guilty of a crime because it was committed when they were their original gender. They claim that the person of that previous gender is now 'dead' and therefore the person in their new identity cannot have committed the offence.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thanks for explaining, Notanan. It's a complex world we're negotiating, isn't it?

I totally agree with your 14:37 post, by the way.

Gonegirl - you can apply to have your birth certificate changed to show your new gender. You don't have to have undergone re-assignment surgery but you do have to have lived in your chosen gender for at least 2 years. If you are issued with a 'Gender Recognition Certificate' then HMRC will automatically be informed. HMRC in turn inform DWP.

Likewise, if you have a criminal record there is nothing stopping you changing your gender and name, but there are people whom you must inform if you do (eg: if you are on an offenders register or there are impending prosecutions).

therefore it is possible for an authority to trace your original gender,if they need to.

SueDonim

For that person to stand up in court and say what you describe as having been said, is pure nonsense.
Your DNA doesn't change...ever.
Your iris or fingerprints...very very rarely, only if burned or disfigured.
They are delusional and time wasting.

I have asked for my posts to be deleted. I think it is vitally important that people understand the implications of this and other cases. And encourage you ALL to google and read around the issues for yourselves.

I do not want the police at my door for discussing the legal precidents set by a prolific figure, even though this is allready all in the public domain.

I do not regret raising awareness of issues, but I have to think of my own safety too.

I will see you all on other generic threads about general issues around the "crime" of "deadnaming" etc. Where the risk of doxing and harassment is still there, but less heightened.

It is a difficult position to be in, on the one hand not being comfortable with not standing up for what is happening to other women, and on the other hand needing to protect oneself.

I am in awe and gratitude to the women who are willing to be publically gender critical, despite the bullying and harassment they suffer for it.

Oh please, shall we not have those threads?

P.s. thank you GN for your promt response to my requests for deletion. I hope I left them there long enough to prompt the posters on this thread to look and think a bit deeper into what is going on.

Even if you will NEVER agree with my take on this. Precidents are being set. Find out then draw your own conclusions fully informed.

Well, that's quite a bit of time wasted!