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

[seanie]

The position that someone’s sex is an ineffable mystery is ideological horseshit.

It’s very straightforward 99.98% of the time.

There's that completely imagined number again...

What conditions are you including under the umbrella term “intersex”, and which lead to an ambiguity about a person’s sex?

 

[Arctish]

It’s not about “expression”. It’s about a person’s sex.

Which is a material fact, and sometimes matters.

Sex and gender are two different things.

How your body was formed and what it can do is not the same thing as your identity. A father of two can have a female self identity. And they may have been "in the closet" about it for over 50 years because of their fears of rejection in a society that is hostile to transfolks.

 

[Politesse]

From the American Society for Reproductive Medicine:

Ideologically driven policymakers have introduced or enacted legislation and policies defining legal sex based on biological characteristics at birth, such as genitalia, chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy.

....

Such proposals to define sex into two easily determined categories are unsupported by science and oversimplify the intricate nature of human biology. It is crucial to understand that biological sex is determined by biology, not politics.

They continue with the following brief fact sheet:

Medical and Scientific Facts About Biological Sex

• Biological sex is a label assigned by a medical professional at birth based on physical characteristics (genitalia) and other biological determinants. Gender, a sociological and legal construct that varies by culture, is a complex topic that goes beyond the scope of this resource.
• Sexual differentiation occurs during fetal development and is driven by genetic and hormonal factors. This process determines the development of male or female physical traits but can result in a spectrum of outcomes due to variations in genetic and hormonal influences.
• Chromosomal and genetic factors matter. While XX and XY chromosomes are often associated with female and male sexes, variations such as XXY, XYY, and others also occur in an estimated 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 2,000 live births, which amounts to approximately 200,000 to 330,000 Americans based on the current population.
• Primary sex characteristics (genitalia and reproductive organs) and secondary characteristics (e.g., body hair and breast development) are shaped by genetics and hormones. These traits can vary widely among individuals, even within the same chromosomal sex.
• It is not uncommon for individuals to have atypical combinations of chromosomes (e.g., those with Kleinfelter syndrome, a common condition that results when a person assigned male at birth has an extra copy of the X chromosome instead of the typical XY), hormones, or anatomy that challenge the binary model of sex assignment. Such natural variation, which is neither a disease nor a disorder requiring medical intervention, illustrates the complexity of biological sex.

 

[Politesse]

From the Society for the Study of Evolution:

"We, the Council of the Society for the Study of Evolution, strongly oppose attempts by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to claim that there is a biological basis to defining gender as a strictly binary trait (male/female) determined by genitalia at birth. Variation in biological sex and in gendered expression has been well documented in many species, including humans, through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Moreover, models predict that variation should exist within the categories that HHS proposes as "male" and “female”, indicating that sex should be more accurately viewed as a continuum.* Indeed, experiments in other organisms have confirmed that variation in traits associated with sex is more extensive than for many other traits. Beyond the false claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex or gender, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genitalia one is born with do not define one's identity. Diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans. As a Society, we welcome this diversity and commit to serving and protecting members regardless of their biological sex, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation."

 

[Bomb#20]

It’s not about “expression”. It’s about a person’s sex.

Which is a material fact, and sometimes matters.

Sex and gender are two different things.

How your body was formed and what it can do is not the same thing as your identity. A father of two can have a female self identity.

Gender identity and gender are also two different things.

The characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed are not the same thing as your identity. A father of two having a female self identity doesn't imply that society constructed the characteristics for its "women and girls" category in a way the father of two satisfies. Some society in principle could have constructed its gender categories so as to take self identity into account, but "could have" plus 73 cents buys a postage stamp.

 

[Bomb#20]

From the American Society for Reproductive Medicine:

There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.

They continue with the following brief fact sheet:

Calling sloganeering a fact sheet makes it a fact sheet the way calling a tail a leg makes it a leg.

Biological sex is a label

And therefore animals did not have biological sexes until animals with label-making brains evolved.

assigned by a medical professional

And therefore humans did not have biological sexes until the medical profession arose; and even today humans still do not have biological sexes if they're born in cultures without medical professionals or if their families are too poor to engage one.

at birth

And therefore even humans with all the best medical care in the world, whose reproductive anatomy was observed and recognized in utero by ultrasound and was duly celebrated in gender reveal parties, did not have biological sexes until their mothers squeezed their babies' fully formed penises or vaginas out of their uteri.

Gender, a sociological and legal construct that varies by culture, is a complex topic that goes beyond the scope of this resource.

It apparently isn't, since gender, not biological sex, is a label somebody assigns.

 

[Politesse]

There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.

There's nothing like dismissing any and all arguments made by actual scientists, to make it plain that you are hawking pseudoscience.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.

There's nothing like dismissing any and all arguments made by actual scientists, to make it plain that you are hawking pseudoscience.

You are fractally wrong.

1. What I dismissed contained no arguments, just an ideological slogan. How many times does it need to be pointed out that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition? "Biological sex is a label assigned by a medical professional at birth based on physical characteristics (genitalia) and other biological determinants." does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify. And as ideological slogans go, it is more imbecilic than average, for reasons I pointed out.

2. What I dismissed was not promulgated by actual scientists. As you said, the source is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. They're doctors, not scientists.

3. Nothing I hawked was pseudoscience. All I did was point out the logical implications of ASRM's imbecilic assertion. Is there anything I wrote you even disagree with? Do you think it's possible for a label to exist without a label-maker? Do you believe dinosaurs had no biological sexes? Do you believe they had biological sexes assigned to them by Adam before they were all wiped out in the Great Flood? Do you believe male and female dinosaurs were labeled respectively male and female by God in His role as the Supreme Medical Professional?

 

[seanie]

Sex and gender are two different things.

How your body was formed and what it can do is not the same thing as your identity. A father of two can have a female self identity. And they may have been "in the closet" about it for over 50 years because of their fears of rejection in a society that is hostile to transfolks.

So some men, really, really, believe that they are women.

Yeah, we know this.

But they’re not.

 

[Arctish]

Sex and gender are two different things.

How your body was formed and what it can do is not the same thing as your identity. A father of two can have a female self identity. And they may have been "in the closet" about it for over 50 years because of their fears of rejection in a society that is hostile to transfolks.

So some men, really, really, believe that they are women.

Yeah, we know this.

But they’re not.

Yeah.

And some men really, really think they're sexually attracted to men when we all know they're mistaken, that Satan is deceiving them, that they are choosing to be perverts, and really, Alan Turing did the only decent thing when he killed himself.

I was born in the 1950s, guys. This anti- anything that has to do with sex that doesn't uphold traditional sexist tropes is nothing new.

 

[Bomb#20]

And even if that weren’t the case, it has no bearing at all upon the question of whether people who are unambiguously biologically male, with no exceptionally rare chromosomal conditions, should be allowed into female only spaces because they really, really, really want to.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this much is true. Your opinion on trans people in gyms has absolutely nothing to do with the science of intersex chromosomal expression. That is your emotions talking, and nothing any scientist could say on the matter would ever change your mind. Correct? Or is there aome fact that, if discovered and somehow communicated to you, would make you okay with trans people using public spaces? I think not.

[My bold.]
Why did you change "female only spaces" to "public spaces"? That's the sort of change a person would make who wanted to paint seanie as not okay with trans people using public spaces in general. Do you have evidence that he isn't okay with trans people using public spaces in general?

The law we're discussing, however, absolutely does concern the real science of sex and sex expression, and most people affected by it aren't trans at all. Every single UK citizen regardless of their status has been redefined and restricted by the overreach of this ruling.

How do you figure any of that? For them to have been redefined and restricted by this ruling, their previous status would have to have been different. Well, what was their previous status? Whatever you think it was, what evidence do you have that that was their status?

A ruling like this might arguably have been judicial overreach if the SCOTUS had decided it, but British constitutional law works a little differently. Since the Glorious Revolution the basic principle British law has been based on is parliamentary sovereignty -- Westminster parliamentary sovereignty. It is not within the delegated authority of the devolved parliaments to take more power for themselves by tactically redefining words used in general UK laws than the UK parliament devolved to them. So the Supreme Court does not appear to have changed anyone's status an iota; it simply clarified what UK citizens' status had been all along, correcting the misinformation the Scottish parliament had been telling Scots about what their status was. This ruling in no way implies transwomen can't be legally considered women; it simply puts all who want transwomen to be legally considered women on notice that they'll need to convince the UK parliament to enact that policy into law, rather than convincing their local devolved parliament, or some judge. And under the UK constitutional system, that was always the case. How, then, can this ruling be considered overreach?

 

[seanie]

And some men really, really think they're sexually attracted to men when we all know they're mistaken, that Satan is deceiving them, that they are choosing to be perverts, and really, Alan Turing did the only decent thing when he killed himself.

Huh?

How do “we all know” that same sex attracted people are mistaken?

What criteria would you use to determine that?

 

[Politesse]

What I dismissed was not promulgated by actual scientists. As you said, the source is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. They're doctors, not scientists.

This is, as you say, fractally wrong.

Do you think it's possible for a label to exist without a label-maker?

No, I don't. And no, consequently I don't think dinosaurs considered themselves men or women, let alone "biologically male" or "female". Social categories are always imposed on, not found in, the natural world. Arguing about whether or not Pluto is a planet is never a question of whether Pluto exists, but rather about what it should be labeled. Likewise, the biological reality described by our sex and gender terms has always existed, but our labeling of it has not, and indeed no one was talking about "biological sex" until the beginning of the 19th century when some of its contours were becoming better understood. Terms like "Man", "woman", and "Bathroom" are considerably older than that, and they come with huge rafts of cultural, religious, and historical baggage that preceded the scientific era.

 

[Politesse]

So, Seanie, it's been a few weeks now. Do you feel safer when you go outside since the ruling? Are women safe now? Are the men contained? Is your life better?

 

[seanie]

Little effect on me directly, though my lesbian daughter is much happier with the direction of travel.

 

[ZiprHead]

And some men really, really think they're sexually attracted to men when we all know they're mistaken, that Satan is deceiving them, that they are choosing to be perverts, and really, Alan Turing did the only decent thing when he killed himself.

Huh?

How do “we all know” that same sex attracted people are mistaken?

What criteria would you use to determine that?

Way to let the point fly right over your head.

 

[seanie]

No, I’m exploring the analogy.

Because it’s not a good one.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, I’m exploring the analogy.

Because it’s not a good one.

No, you are avoiding the analogy. We see what you write.

 

[Politesse]

Little effect on me directly, though my lesbian daughter is much happier with the direction of travel.

Towards her eventual exile from public gyms and bathrooms under the guise of "protecting women" from lesbian advances, you mean?

 

[TomC]

And some men really, really think they're sexually attracted to men when we all know they're mistaken, that Satan is deceiving them, that they are choosing to be perverts, and really, Alan Turing did the only decent thing when he killed himself.

Huh?

How do “we all know” that same sex attracted people are mistaken?

What criteria would you use to determine that?

Way to let the point fly right over your head.

The only point I saw was the kind of dishonest dissembling required to convince oneself that sex is an impossible category to determine, therefore men are entitled to use the women's restroom.

Folks like the trans activists in this thread have to confuse the physical characteristic of sex with the much more abstract characteristics like gender and orientation. The reference to the gazillion women I've known throughout the years as "hypothetical" was also pretty galling.
Tom