Ludicrous Legal Fictions

Recently, I read about a pre-op transsexual prisoner in the UK, convicted of murder and attempted rape, who has won the right to be transferred from a male prison to a female one. The prisoner, who still has a penis, scrotum, and testicles, had not yet, at the time of incarceration, had surgery to remove male organs and construct a simulated vulva/vagina. This prisoner has had breast implants, laser hair removal, and is taking female hormones to maintain a believable female appearance when clothed.

The decision to move this prisoner was based largely on the fact that in 2006 the prisoner was granted a certificate under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which required that this person be recognized as a woman "for all purposes". In simpler terms, this prisoner is considered "legally female", despite the presence of a penis, scrotum, and testicles. In other words, it's a legal fiction.

I'm sorry, but no "female" of my acquaintance has a dick, nutsack, and balls. My dictionary calls such an individual a "man", regardless of the fake boobs and electrolysis. Socially, this person can call themselves whatever they want, but biologically, this individual is a male. And there is the matter that this prisoner has been convicted of attempted rape -- to let loose such a predator into a prison full of genuine women, while still having the "tools" to rape again, is completely ludicrous in my opinion.

This absurd legal fiction reminded me of another common legal fiction; that a woman's husband is legally considered to be the father of her children, even when there is DNA evidence to the contrary. Some time ago, I posted an entry about a man who'd fathered a child during an affair with a married woman, who was denied visitation rights with his child. The woman was still married and the husband was upheld as the legal father, rather than the step/adoptive father, thus the biological father was considered an "unrelated" person with no valid interest in the child.

I'm also reminded of men who are legally forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs and whom they've never raised or had any sort of relationship with.

I don't know about you, but I take a dim view of such legal fictions that try to mandate what some people think "should" be, rather than acknowledging the truth of what really is. The law should deal objectively with facts, not contrived social engineering.

Thoughts?