An interesting case

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Got to, "B identifies as gender non-binary" and lost the will to read anymore. I am 67 and have no idea what non-binary means.

 

Angel1.

[Mossway 15]

Got to, "B identifies as gender non-binary" and lost the will to read anymore. I am 67 and have no idea what non-binary means.

 

Angel1.

 

Angel,

There was an article in either the Times or Sunday Times last weekend on whether declared 'binary' persons, although male heterosexual, could use this as an excuse to wander around ladies' changing rooms at swimming pools, gyms etc and 'cast their eyes on' the ladies.

It's a problem if you allow people to declare their gender without some form of proof.

[ECCOnoob 1,043]

B should have informed their own insurance company of the court papers who would then have filed a defence.

But if B's insurance got a copy, then why didn't they file a defence anyway?

 

Im with you on this one. There seems to he some huge gaps in the story which need addressing before anyone can really comment.

 

Where is all the pre-action correspondence between the parties? What information is on the court papers? Surely even the most dodgy back street solicitor will have basic vehicle and insurance details on record in order to correctly identify a Defendant owner/driver before they can even contemplate issuing court papers.

 

If those papers have been served on Mr/Mrs or Ms X they must have at the very least had enough valid information on file in which to have submitted a claim on the insurers system, got a medical report and drafted a formal particulars of claim.

 

If party A is now disputing they are sufficiently identified surely that will also mean that their driving licence and insurance which they were previously perfectly happy to accept as valid is now not valid. That will open them up to a world of trouble legally.

 

They need to be very careful on this one. Trying to be too clever can bite you on the backside.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[sgtkate 10]

Angel,

There was an article in either the Times or Sunday Times last weekend on whether declared 'binary' persons, although male heterosexual, could use this as an excuse to wander around ladies' changing rooms at swimming pools, gyms etc and 'cast their eyes on' the ladies.

It's a problem if you allow people to declare their gender without some form of proof.

 

No it's not. We aren't talking about someone changing their gender to allow them to go into changing rooms on a whim, that isn't what the law is trying to do. And just in case you didn't know, if you DECLARE yourself to be female you can use the female changing rooms already, regardless of your genitalia. Perhaps some education is needed.

 

Perhaps if men are prepared to identify as female for years just so they can perv at women in changing rooms then perhaps we should be dealing with that rather than stopping people who have made a conscious decision that they wish to be regarded as being of a certain gender doing so without hurting anyone.

 

And once again my original predictions on this thread are proving correct.

 

---------- Post added 02-08-2017 at 09:36 ----------

 

Im with you on this one. There seems to he some huge gaps in the story which need addressing before anyone can really comment.

 

Where is all the pre-action correspondence between the parties? What information is on the court papers? Surely even the most dodgy back street solicitor will have basic vehicle and insurance details on record in order to correctly identify a Defendant owner/driver before they can even contemplate issuing court papers.

 

If those papers have been served on Mr/Mrs or Ms X they must have at the very least had enough valid information on file in which to have submitted a claim on the insurers system, got a medical report and drafted a formal particulars of claim.

 

If party A is now disputing they are sufficiently identified surely that will also mean that their driving licence and insurance which they were previously perfectly happy to accept as valid is now not valid. That will open them up to a world of trouble legally.

 

They need to be very careful on this one. Trying to be too clever can bite you on the backside.

 

Yep, agree with that. You can't have it all ways. If the insurance is in Mr or Miss name and their driving license is too then the court papers must be served in the same name otherwise you are expecting the law firms to have powers of clairvoyance. So surely this entire case hangs on what name is their LEGAL name on their insurance and driving license and if it's the same as the name the court papers were served to then there is no case to be heard regardless of what they wish to be called.

[barleycorn 10]

And that's A's argument. Exactly that. Mrs/Ms/Miss wouldn't generally be an issue.

 

B's argument is that it is. B will say that the rules are very clear (which to be fair they are) and that the rules say that the parties must have their full, correct legal title on the papers. B says that A should have to now retrospectively apply to get the full name correct.

 

This is why I said that legally, I can see both points. I know what I suspect will happen, but I can see how it could be argued both ways.

 

As for the letter, they 'assume' it was the Court papers. It became very clear when Judgment was entered though and in any event, the insurers were sent a copy of the papers also and followed it up I understand. As I say, it's a whole load of issues!!

What is B's full, correect legal title? Have they gone through whatever legal channels are appropriate in order to change it from Mr to Mx? And, as others have said, what does it say on the policy?

 

And, from a personal standpoint, why the hell didn't he/she/it?* just open the damned letter?

 

* sorry, I have no idea what the correct pronoun should be.

Edited August 2, 2017 by barleycorn

[Cyclone 10]

Xe or something along those lines.

[ihpb 10]

As the insurers should be dealing with it then B could have forwarded the papers to their insurer.

[buddysbuddy 12]

Got to, "B identifies as gender non-binary" and lost the will to read anymore. I am 67 and have no idea what non-binary means.

 

Angel1.

 

I begin to despair!!all these designations around, I can think of 3 that would suffice. 1. if you have dangly bits between your legs then you are male. 2. if you have dangly bits on your chesy then you are female. anything else could be put into the category of " IT" I am now wearing my crash helmet ready for the incoming!!

[Cyclone 10]

I am now wearing my crash helmet ready for the incoming!!

 

If you knew you were saying something that people could find offensive, why did you say it?

[lectrolove 10]

Angel,

There was an article in either the Times or Sunday Times last weekend on whether declared 'binary' persons, although male heterosexual, could use this as an excuse to wander around ladies' changing rooms at swimming pools, gyms etc and 'cast their eyes on' the ladies.

It's a problem if you allow people to declare their gender without some form of proof.

 

It was the Sunday Times. The previous week there was also a story about a convicted murderer who self-identified as female, got himself moved to a women's prison and proceeded to have sex with female inmates. If true it's all very concerning for women.

[Cyclone 10]

Not this one then?

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-woman-found-dead-in-all-male-jail-sd0zdcdx303

 

That's what happens when the authorities refuse to accept someones self identification.

 

The new policy follows the apparent suicides last year of two transgender inmates who were sent to male prisons.

 

---------- Post added 02-08-2017 at 12:44 ----------

 

The story you're quoting doesn't seem to be in any paper except the trash tabloids.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Paris+Green+hmp+edinburgh&oq=Paris+Green+hmp+edinburgh&aqs=chrome..69i57.4663j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

So who knows whether it's remotely true or not.

[sgtkate 10]

It was the Sunday Times. The previous week there was also a story about a convicted murderer who self-identified as female, got himself moved to a women's prison and proceeded to have sex with female inmates. If true it's all very concerning for women.

 

Like women do with other women in female prisons? Or men do with other men in male prisons? If the sex was consensual then I struggle to see the issue here. If it was rape then the same laws apply within prison as outside of it. Anyway, this thread has gone massively off the original topic as people once again are absolutely and pathetically unable to see past the provable and far more common than you think case of physical sex and mental gender not being aligned.