Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[seanie]

Then you’ve revealed yourself as a misogynist.

 

[bilby]

How the feck are we supposed to comply with a law so unclearly stated that no individual can be certain how or whether it applies to them?

You are not. Totalitarian states always ensure that complete compliance with the law is impossible, as this gives the state the ability to arrest anyone at any time.

The law becomes a tool to oppress anyone the leader declares to be an enemy, and ceases to be a protection for the citizenry.

We’re just asking males to stay out of female only spaces.

No, you are not. You are also asking people to carry, and present to officials on demand, documentation that proves their biological gender at birth.

You are also asking females who you opine to be male, despite their opinion to the contrary, to stay out of female only spaces.

And you are further insulting and degrading women who meet your criterion for womanhood, but who officials feel are not "obviously" women, by requiring them to prove their hitherto unremarkable and unremarked status.

This is not totalitarianism.

Yes, it is.

This is perfectly reasonable.

No, it's not.

 

[Toni]

it"If you define sex as strictly chromosomal". So who the bejesus is proposing to define sex that way? Your obsession with chromosomes is a "killer-amendment" you keep trying to graft into your opponents' position precisely to make it untenable. Neither British law nor any of the posters here define sex as XX vs. XY.

What rubric does British law propose?

The established legal position is that biological sex is a material fact that can be established.

It comes down to reproductive pathways, male or female, the binary of sex.

That is not an answer. That is a promise of an answer that neither you nor this ruling is capable of providing, because your confidence is based on ignorance of rather than knowledge about reproductive science.

It’s an answer to the question. That biological sex is binary and immutable is common law.

That was not disputed in the case so the Supreme Courthad no need to address the question.

The respondents weren’t denying the reality of biological sex, just that certificated sex took precedence.

You could try reading the judgement, or even watching the hearing.

It’s public.

But that’s not true that humans are binary with respect to sexuality or gender. Yes, it is far more common for people to be cis/male or cis/female. The existence of people who are not cis has long been repressed so that today, many people do not know or refuse to accept that there is more than just XX or XY chromosomes that determine gender and sex.

 

[seanie]

If anyone thinks a double rapist, both biologically male and legally male, should be sent to a female prison to preserve their dignity, privacy and safety, then you have revealed yourself.

As someone with no regard at all for the dignity, privacy, and safety of women.

Shame on you.

If anyone thinks a woman who looks or acts in a slightly mannish way, should be required to submit to interrogation by the manager of a public facility, to preserve their dignity, privacy and safety, then you have revealed yourself.

As someone with no regard at all for the dignity, privacy, and safety of women.

Shame on you.

Who said anything about a woman who looks or acts in a “slightly mannish way”?

The issue is not behaviour or presentation, it is sex.

Males are excluded from female spaces regardless of how they behave or present.

 

[seanie]

How the feck are we supposed to comply with a law so unclearly stated that no individual can be certain how or whether it applies to them?

You are not. Totalitarian states always ensure that complete compliance with the law is impossible, as this gives the state the ability to arrest anyone at any time.

The law becomes a tool to oppress anyone the leader declares to be an enemy, and ceases to be a protection for the citizenry.

We’re just asking males to stay out of female only spaces.

No, you are not. You are also asking people to carry, and present to officials on demand, documentation that proves their biological gender at birth.

You are also asking females who you opine to be male, despite their opinion to the contrary, to stay out of female only spaces.

And you are further insulting and degrading women who meet your criterion for womanhood, but who officials feel are not "obviously" women, by requiring them to prove their hitherto unremarkable and unremarked status.

This is not totalitarianism.

Yes, it is.

This is perfectly reasonable.

No, it's not.

it"If you define sex as strictly chromosomal". So who the bejesus is proposing to define sex that way? Your obsession with chromosomes is a "killer-amendment" you keep trying to graft into your opponents' position precisely to make it untenable. Neither British law nor any of the posters here define sex as XX vs. XY.

What rubric does British law propose?

The established legal position is that biological sex is a material fact that can be established.

It comes down to reproductive pathways, male or female, the binary of sex.

That is not an answer. That is a promise of an answer that neither you nor this ruling is capable of providing, because your confidence is based on ignorance of rather than knowledge about reproductive science.

It’s an answer to the question. That biological sex is binary and immutable is common law.

That was not disputed in the case so the Supreme Courthad no need to address the question.

The respondents weren’t denying the reality of biological sex, just that certificated sex took precedence.

You could try reading the judgement, or even watching the hearing.

It’s public.

But that’s not true that humans are binary with respect to sexuality or gender. Yes, it is far more common for people to be cis/make or cis/femake. The existence of people who are not cis has long been repressed so that today, many people do not know or refuse to accept that there is more than just XX or XY chromosomes that determine gender and sex.

No, sex is binary. It’s an evolved reproductive strategy with only two roles. Large gametes/small gametes, female/male.

Every human is either male or female, regardless of rare chromosomal differences and DSDs.

 

[Toni]

How the feck are we supposed to comply with a law so unclearly stated that no individual can be certain how or whether it applies to them?

You are not. Totalitarian states always ensure that complete compliance with the law is impossible, as this gives the state the ability to arrest anyone at any time.

The law becomes a tool to oppress anyone the leader declares to be an enemy, and ceases to be a protection for the citizenry.

We’re just asking males to stay out of female only spaces.

No, you are not. You are also asking people to carry, and present to officials on demand, documentation that proves their biological gender at birth.

You are also asking females who you opine to be male, despite their opinion to the contrary, to stay out of female only spaces.

And you are further insulting and degrading women who meet your criterion for womanhood, but who officials feel are not "obviously" women, by requiring them to prove their hitherto unremarkable and unremarked status.

This is not totalitarianism.

Yes, it is.

This is perfectly reasonable.

No, it's not.

it"If you define sex as strictly chromosomal". So who the bejesus is proposing to define sex that way? Your obsession with chromosomes is a "killer-amendment" you keep trying to graft into your opponents' position precisely to make it untenable. Neither British law nor any of the posters here define sex as XX vs. XY.

What rubric does British law propose?

The established legal position is that biological sex is a material fact that can be established.

It comes down to reproductive pathways, male or female, the binary of sex.

That is not an answer. That is a promise of an answer that neither you nor this ruling is capable of providing, because your confidence is based on ignorance of rather than knowledge about reproductive science.

It’s an answer to the question. That biological sex is binary and immutable is common law.

That was not disputed in the case so the Supreme Courthad no need to address the question.

The respondents weren’t denying the reality of biological sex, just that certificated sex took precedence.

You could try reading the judgement, or even watching the hearing.

It’s public.

But that’s not true that humans are binary with respect to sexuality or gender. Yes, it is far more common for people to be cis/make or cis/femake. The existence of people who are not cis has long been repressed so that today, many people do not know or refuse to accept that there is more than just XX or XY chromosomes that determine gender and sex.

No, sex is binary. It’s an evolved reproductive strategy with only two roles. Large gametes/small gametes, female/male.

Every human is either male or female, regardless of rare chromosomal differences and DSDs.

No. You are incorrect. The binary is true in an overwhelming majority of cases but it is not true always.

 

[seanie]

How the feck are we supposed to comply with a law so unclearly stated that no individual can be certain how or whether it applies to them?

You are not. Totalitarian states always ensure that complete compliance with the law is impossible, as this gives the state the ability to arrest anyone at any time.

The law becomes a tool to oppress anyone the leader declares to be an enemy, and ceases to be a protection for the citizenry.

We’re just asking males to stay out of female only spaces.

No, you are not. You are also asking people to carry, and present to officials on demand, documentation that proves their biological gender at birth.

You are also asking females who you opine to be male, despite their opinion to the contrary, to stay out of female only spaces.

And you are further insulting and degrading women who meet your criterion for womanhood, but who officials feel are not "obviously" women, by requiring them to prove their hitherto unremarkable and unremarked status.

This is not totalitarianism.

Yes, it is.

This is perfectly reasonable.

No, it's not.

Well it’s the law where I live.

Cry harder.

People have the right to identify how they wish in terms of gender. They are protected from discrimination on that basis.

But that doesn’t mean their sex has changed.

And Sex is also a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, and the Equality Act allows for single sex spaces. In some circumstances a failure to provide single sex spaces will be unlawful.

And by single sex, the law means biological sex.

Which, protestations to the contrary, is not a difficult thing to establish.

 

[seanie]

Sex is binary by its very nature.

That’s just evolution.

 

[bilby]

If anyone thinks a double rapist, both biologically male and legally male, should be sent to a female prison to preserve their dignity, privacy and safety, then you have revealed yourself.

As someone with no regard at all for the dignity, privacy, and safety of women.

Shame on you.

If anyone thinks a woman who looks or acts in a slightly mannish way, should be required to submit to interrogation by the manager of a public facility, to preserve their dignity, privacy and safety, then you have revealed yourself.

As someone with no regard at all for the dignity, privacy, and safety of women.

Shame on you.

Who said anything about a woman who looks or acts in a “slightly mannish way”?

It is an unavoidable implication of your position. There is no way to tell the difference between a woman who looks or acts in a slightly mannish way, but who meets your criterion for womanhood, and a transwoman who does not, other than to require both to prove their status.

The issue is not behaviour or presentation, it is sex.

Which is impossible to determine, without requiring people to submit to interrogation by the manager of a public facility, or by some other official, in contravention of their right to dignity, privacy and safety.

Males are excluded from female spaces regardless of how they behave or present.

And so are females, if the official in charge is not satisfied that they qualify.

Because there is no way to definitively determine the difference between a male and a female other than by invasion of their privacy, if the definition is based only on what genitals they happen to have.

 

[seanie]

And my only criteria for someone being a woman, is them being an adult human female.

Their haircut doesn’t matter.

Nor how they identify.

 

[bilby]

Cry harder.

Oh, sorry. (edited) I could have saved you a lot of time.

You can fuck off to Ignore land. Try not to cry too hard about it.

 

[seanie]

You’re advocating for people lying about their biological sex. That we should let them do it.

That we can’t possibly stop males entering female only spaces without invading their privacy, so we mustn’t try.

Are you insane?

 

[seanie]

Accurately ID should obviate the need for any genital checks.

What, we are all going to have to carry identity cards to use a bathroom now? What is this, 1984?

And any ID either requires a genital check in order to be issued; Or does not meet your criterion of "accuracy".

People just observe the rules and everything is good.

Freedom is slavery.

Have you ever heard of birth certificates?

I don't carry my birth certificate around, and don't intend to start doing so, just in case I want to use a public toilet and some fascist demands that I produce my papers first.

There are no genital inspections required if official documents accurately record biological sex, alongside gender identity.

I refuse to carry official documents for such purposes, as do all who care about basic liberties.

And again, this obsession with public toilets.

There are other situations where this matters more.

You mis-spelled "There are other situations where I feel my arguments are stronger".

If you are 100% fine and OK with the use of ladies toilet facilities by transwomen, then we are in agreement. If not, then you don't actually think that "There are other situations where this matters more", you just realise that you can't make a consistent and coherent argument for your not being 100% fine and OK with the use of ladies toilet facilities by transwomen.

Cry harder.

Oh, sorry. If only you had identified yourself as a troll who was not worth bothering with sooner, I could have saved you a lot of time.

You can fuck off to Ignore land. Try not to cry too hard about it.

I’m hurt.

I thought we had a connection.

 

[seanie]

Cry harder.

Oh, sorry. If only you had identified yourself as a troll who was not worth bothering with sooner, I could have saved you a lot of time.

You can fuck off to Ignore land. Try not to cry too hard about it.

But just to check, you do think biologically and legally male double rapists, who identify as trans women after being charged, should be sent to women’s prisons?

For their privacy, dignity, and safety?

Won’t anyone think of the rapists?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Sex is binary by its very nature.

That’s just evolution.

That is not evolution. In nature there are many species that do not have two sexes. Some have none or one or many. In some species individuals can switch between male and female. Do you deny their right to exist?

 

[Politesse]

Knows a person’s biological sex?

We have this thing called birth certificates, and legally, as citizens, our sex is recorded.

Even amended birth certificates, denoting a change of legal sex, flag up that the certificate has been amended.

It’s essential for the operation of law.

And a person’s sex, with very rare exceptions, is not remotely difficult to determine.

Ah, birth certificates. Finally something concrete.

So when you are talking about a "biological sex" (a property somehow known definitively only to the government), what you and the courts actually mean is what actual scientists refer to as one's "sex assigned at birth"?

 

[seanie]

No.

But sex recorded at birth is a pretty reliable starting point.

Like 99.98% of the time.

 

[seanie]

Sex is binary by its very nature.

That’s just evolution.

That is not evolution. In nature there are many species that do not have two sexes. Some have none or one or many. In some species individuals can switch between male and female. Do you deny their right to exist?

So men should be allowed in women’s changing rooms because…

…clownfish?

 

[seanie]

Maybe the Scottish Government should have argued that in the Supreme Court.

 

[Bomb#20]

"If you define sex as strictly chromosomal". So who the bejesus is proposing to define sex that way? Your obsession with chromosomes is a "killer-amendment" you keep trying to graft into your opponents' position precisely to make it untenable. Neither British law nor any of the posters here define sex as XX vs. XY.

What rubric does British law propose?

The established legal position is that biological sex is a material fact that can be established.

It comes down to reproductive pathways, male or female, the binary of sex.

That is not an answer. That is a promise of an answer that neither you nor this ruling is capable of providing, because your confidence is based on ignorance of rather than knowledge about reproductive science.

Humans are gonochoric.

Everyone is either male or female, even those with rare chromosomal differences.

Rather than endlessly extend this Monty-Pythonesque "Yes it is. No it isn't." sequence, let me propose an alternate approach. How about if Politesse consults his knowledge about reproductive science and posts a link to a medical case-study of the intersexed person he thinks provides the single clearest example he can find to demonstrate that H. sapiens is not strictly gonochoric? Then seanie can read the case-study, decide whether the person's development went down the male or female reproductive pathway, and post an explanation for why that person does not qualify as "neither" or "both". You guys up for that?