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

[Emily Lake]

It's funny how these people claim to be speaking for "science", but also despise "academia" and the college system. Almost as though the thing they are calling science is... not, in recognizable sense, science. If your ideology abhors the scrutiny of the scienitific community, a science it is not, but is simply a belief among beliefs.

Yeah... none of that is actually true.

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

So you don’t actually understand or respect liberal arts.

I respect liberal arts as art; but I don't recognize it as science.
I respect social sciences as being science-ish, and trying to apply as much science to an inherently unscientific pursuit as is feasible. I accept them as being scientifically descriptive, but not predictive.
Hard sciences are predictive; they rely on the ability to formulate falsifiable hypotheses regarding quantifiable information.

Most social sciences are much more akin to philosophy than to science. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, and a lot that's very worthwhile. But it's not a hard science, and it cannot be by nature of the material itself.

 

[Emily Lake]

Biology and medicine are not "liberal arts" in any case.

Sure, but neither are they hard sciences.

Biology in particular is ambiguous, it depends entirely on application and approach. A biologist studying the mechanics of cellular replication is entirely different from a biologist studying the mating habits of wombats.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

Girls and women have ALREADY been harmed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Caster Semenya won a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday in her seven-year legal fight against track and field’s sex eligibility rules.

She was assigned female at birth, was raised as a girl, identifies as female, but was banned from competition because she has a DSD which has resulted in her body naturally producing more testosterone than is a typical for a female, and she refused to take drugs to suppress it.

World Athletics, led by its president Sebastian Coe, has said its rules maintain fairness because Semenya has an unfair, male-like athletic advantage from her higher testosterone. Semenya argues her testosterone is a genetic gift.

Semenya has 5-ARD, which is a DSD that ONLY males can have. Semenya is a male of the human species.

 

[Emily Lake]

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice.

Some is not a choice, and is likely to have a neurological basis (unclear whether it's congenital or acquired). Some is a paraphilia. Some is a misplaced fixation driven by autism. Some is a coping mechanism for trauma related to their sexed body. And some is simply exploitation of a gigantic gaping loophole that lets males be in the presence of non-consenting naked females with no consequences.

If we had any remotely reasonable way to tell these apart, it would be an entirely different discussion, and there would be many options for how best to address those few with a neurological basis.

 

[Emily Lake]

I feel, that if gender dysphoria was not mocked by many in public and used as political fodder, and those with gender dysphoria had appropriate treatment, this fear could become negligible.

I despise the way it's being used by republicans, but I also despise the way it's being used by democrats.

Unfortunately, the activists on this have created this situation by demanding that gender dysphoria and clinical diagnosis NOT be a necessary component of being transgender, and that males having access to female intimate spaces NOT be contingent on any treatment or presentation. It's the activists who have demanded that anyone who says they're a woman MUST be given access to female spaces, services, and sports and CANNOT be challenged or doubted.

Like, literally you could post that you have just now realized that you're trans, and piles of people would immediately support your *right* to go into the female side of the korean spa and get your junk out.

It shouldn't be politicized. But this extremity should never have been supported by politicians.

I find it curious that the conversation rarely goes to the male side of things. There are women that understandably don't want any type of male in private female spaces for reasons of protection. There are some males that feel likewise... you know for the woman's safety. Yet, when it comes to the transgender female's safety, there doesn't appear to be this inner-focus by those males. Why do these transgender females want to be there? Because they don't feel safe in the men's locker room. It seems odd, that the males that demand transgender females not be in women's rooms, not provide a hand out to them and help them feel safer in men's spaces. And the reason for that is they don't take a transgender female's position as being legitimate. It becomes The Hole in the Bucket. Males are "protecting" women from transgender females... all the while they don't really want those people in their locker room either.

I've mentioned it before - men gatekeep manhood far more strictly than women gatekeep womanhood. Women (female humans) are way, way, way more accepting and accommodating of women who are butch or masculine presenting than men are; we're also way more accepting of men who are effeminate or feminine presenting than men are. Seriously, it was never women attacking and beating up lesbians in women's restrooms, or freaking out if a lesbian hit on us - it was always men assaulting gay men.

This entire topic would be a whole lot easier to tackle (for a large chunk anyway) if men would simply be decent to other men who like to present in female-typical ways.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m not certain how universal open acceptance of transgendered individuals protects against those very few malicious individuals who have every intention of gaining more access to preferred victims.

To me, this is the biggest part of the problem. Like so many other human issues, a small group of people create the large majority of the problems.

In this particular issue it's mostly men. We are far more prone to physical dominance than our sisters. Far more! As a result trans people are not especially welcome or safe in the men's room or prisons. At the same time women have very good reasons to get upset about male strangers acting oddly, such as using the women's restroom.
Women have plenty of ways of being despicable human beings, but they are typically different from the men.

Tom

This is made worse by the fact that *some* people who assert to be transwomen are doing so as a means of feeding a paraphilia using women as live action props in their sexual role play. Even if it's not many, they do exist, and that's a problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

I'm trying not to bristle, because I respect you and I think you're trying to be reasonable here.

On the other hand... what you think is a "better approach" isn't better for female human beings. You're essentially taking the position that women (female humans) should change our expectations with respect to single-sex facilities, and that we should just roll over and start expecting that males will be in our female spaces - regardless of whether we want them there or not. You're implying that women should relinquish our social conventions regardless of how uncomfortable or intimidated or at risk it makes us, in order to ensure that some males are more satisfied. And you present this as being "less intrusive" even though it's incredibly intrusive for women to be put into a position where we are expected to let strange males look at our nude bodies without consent, or where we're expected to tolerate being exposed to the penises of strange males without consent.

At the end of the day, whether you intend it or not, you're taking the position that women should surrender consent in favor of the desires of men.

Utter bullshit. Not only did I not present anything as less intrusive at this time, but the notion of changing expectations and social conventions means voluntary acceptance on the part of women and men.

 

[Arctish]

Caster Semenya won a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday in her seven-year legal fight against track and field’s sex eligibility rules.

She was assigned female at birth, was raised as a girl, identifies as female, but was banned from competition because she has a DSD which has resulted in her body naturally producing more testosterone than is a typical for a female, and she refused to take drugs to suppress it.

World Athletics, led by its president Sebastian Coe, has said its rules maintain fairness because Semenya has an unfair, male-like athletic advantage from her higher testosterone. Semenya argues her testosterone is a genetic gift.

Semenya has 5-ARD, which is a DSD that ONLY males can have. Semenya is a male of the human species.

Sex assigned at birth is central to this controversy. You might think Semenya is male, but she is/was declared female on her birth certificate, was raised as a female in her family and society, and identifies as a female.

I believe it is more accurate to say Semenya is an intersex female rather than to simply declare her to be male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm talking about the harm caused by the two approaches.

What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about two approaches. I'm talking about two different things.
Sex is one thing, gender is another thing.
Tom

Fundamentally, this comes down to whether people use the bathroom of their anatomy or their presentation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs are not naturally evolved plants growing wild in the forest; they are engineered products of human economic activity. They only exist at all because individual humans have reasons to produce them. The systemic barriers to equal access that your childish cartoon claims are unjust are in fact essential components of the social machinery that creates good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs in the first place. That's not feudalism. Heck, that's not even capitalism -- it's just reality. Even Lenin figured it out, after less than a year in power. You are proposing to beautify a skyscraper by dynamiting its first floor, because you find it ugly.

Exactly. The world runs on productive effort. The system needs to be set up such that it is rewarded. Every attempt to do anything else above the small community level has gone badly. And an equity approach inherently strips away such rewards.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it is also impossible to ignore the FACT that individuals claiming to be trans (written without judging whether they are or are pretending to gain access to victims) have indeed exploited the access to girls/women’s facilities and have physically harmed women and girls. I know you don’t read links but upthread, I linked a news piece about a teenager who presented as a trans girl raping a girl in the girl’s restroom. They had done so at a previous school as well—which boggles my mind that they were not being held in the first crime or were allowed to enroll in a second school and again given access to their preferred victims.

Wore a skirt. That's not presenting as female to me.

And we have another who unquestionably attacked--but before they transitioned.

And we have a third who I can't find an answer as to whether the attacks were before or after transition. I find this lack quite suggestive.

And we have one who took selfies, didn't attack anyone.

We have zero attacks that were unquestionably female presenting and in women's rooms. If there were any why aren't the anti-trans crowd pointing at them rather than at the ones they are pointing at.

I do not think men or boys realize how difficult and upsetting it can be for girls and women to not be able to just do normal things like walk to the movie theater or on a walking path around a lake—dressed in clothes like you stepped out of a JC Penny or Lands End catalogue ( ie modestly) because of unwanted and sometimes disgusting attention from males. Or worse. Of course for a minority of males, that is the point: to make females uncomfortable or afraid.

The problem is you are misapplying a legitimate fear.

Thought exercise: imagine being a skinny ( or fat—or perfectly proportioned!) 13 year old boy who has to shower in front of an , unpleasant middle aged female gym teacher and her 3 assistants. Or shower in the girl’s locker room. It is almost certain that any such 13 year old boy would feel uncomfortable. A lot of grown men would as well.

Only if you were raised that nudity was shameful. Obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure how I would react, but that's not too far from what happened at 16 and beyond the initial shock it didn't bother me at all.

We’ve heard that all gender bathrooms are like painting targets in the backs of trans or queer kids. That is honestly not something I had considered. It’s horrible and I can understand why that’s not the great, neutral situation that I thought it was.

Occupational hazard of being a programmer--always looking for edge cases that break things.

But allowing male bodies in female only spaces is also like painting targets on every female bodies person who uses those spaces. Sure, only a minority of trans individuals would ever harm another girl or woman but I will tell you with absolute certainty: It is impossible to know who will will not try to harm you. Most victims of sexual assault are assaulted by someone they know and trust

So what is YOUR solution, Loren?

When you go by biology you're letting in male-presenting people. How can you be sure they're trans and not rapists using it for access? You're actually enabling the very thing you're trying to prevent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Honestly and quite anecdotally, I'm a lot more worried about the generalized male dominated social dynamic, than a random transgender person in the bathroom, as it would impact my daughter's life. I'm much much more worried about my daughter being raped by a self-entitlement prick who'll never be formally accused, than by being attacked by some transgender person. Because the former happens all the damn time... and we are here complaining about gender and the threat that a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of the population are, relative to the threat of a notable percentage of nearly half the population is. I consider that prior background noise levels.

Exactly. The problem is real. Focusing on the trans is a distraction.

 

[Toni]

But it is also impossible to ignore the FACT that individuals claiming to be trans (written without judging whether they are or are pretending to gain access to victims) have indeed exploited the access to girls/women’s facilities and have physically harmed women and girls. I know you don’t read links but upthread, I linked a news piece about a teenager who presented as a trans girl raping a girl in the girl’s restroom. They had done so at a previous school as well—which boggles my mind that they were not being held in the first crime or were allowed to enroll in a second school and again given access to their preferred victims.

Wore a skirt. That's not presenting as female to me.

And we have another who unquestionably attacked--but before they transitioned.

And we have a third who I can't find an answer as to whether the attacks were before or after transition. I find this lack quite suggestive.

And we have one who took selfies, didn't attack anyone.

We have zero attacks that were unquestionably female presenting and in women's rooms. If there were any why aren't the anti-trans crowd pointing at them rather than at the ones they are pointing at.

I do not think men or boys realize how difficult and upsetting it can be for girls and women to not be able to just do normal things like walk to the movie theater or on a walking path around a lake—dressed in clothes like you stepped out of a JC Penny or Lands End catalogue ( ie modestly) because of unwanted and sometimes disgusting attention from males. Or worse. Of course for a minority of males, that is the point: to make females uncomfortable or afraid.

The problem is you are misapplying a legitimate fear.

Thought exercise: imagine being a skinny ( or fat—or perfectly proportioned!) 13 year old boy who has to shower in front of an , unpleasant middle aged female gym teacher and her 3 assistants. Or shower in the girl’s locker room. It is almost certain that any such 13 year old boy would feel uncomfortable. A lot of grown men would as well.

Only if you were raised that nudity was shameful. Obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure how I would react, but that's not too far from what happened at 16 and beyond the initial shock it didn't bother me at all.

We’ve heard that all gender bathrooms are like painting targets in the backs of trans or queer kids. That is honestly not something I had considered. It’s horrible and I can understand why that’s not the great, neutral situation that I thought it was.

Occupational hazard of being a programmer--always looking for edge cases that break things.

But allowing male bodies in female only spaces is also like painting targets on every female bodies person who uses those spaces. Sure, only a minority of trans individuals would ever harm another girl or woman but I will tell you with absolute certainty: It is impossible to know who will will not try to harm you. Most victims of sexual assault are assaulted by someone they know and trust

So what is YOUR solution, Loren?

When you go by biology you're letting in male-presenting people. How can you be sure they're trans and not rapists using it for access? You're actually enabling the very thing you're trying to prevent.

The person who attacked a girl ( twice, in two separate schools) in a school restroom was female presenting enough that two different schools allowed them to access a girl’s restroom at school.

I do not care one whit about your personal criteria for ‘female presenting’ to determine access to a girl’s restroom. The FACT is that girls are being attacked—raped—in a girl’s restroom which, btw, they are required to use in schools they are legally required to attend.

You think that I am ‘misapplying’ a fear? Exactly what does that mean? YOU see no reason to be afraid so it’s not a problem? Exactly how many times have you been raped? Sexually assaulted?


You have zero expertise or knowledge or understanding of the issue other than it isn’t a problem FOR YOU.

When you go by biology you're letting in male-presenting people. How can you be sure they're trans and not rapists using it for access? You're actually enabling the very thing you're trying to prevent.

I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.

 

[Toni]

It's funny how these people claim to be speaking for "science", but also despise "academia" and the college system. Almost as though the thing they are calling science is... not, in recognizable sense, science. If your ideology abhors the scrutiny of the scienitific community, a science it is not, but is simply a belief among beliefs.

Yeah... none of that is actually true.

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

So you don’t actually understand or respect liberal arts.

I respect liberal arts as art; but I don't recognize it as science.
I respect social sciences as being science-ish, and trying to apply as much science to an inherently unscientific pursuit as is feasible. I accept them as being scientifically descriptive, but not predictive.
Hard sciences are predictive; they rely on the ability to formulate falsifiable hypotheses regarding quantifiable information.

Most social sciences are much more akin to philosophy than to science. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, and a lot that's very worthwhile. But it's not a hard science, and it cannot be by nature of the material itself.

I’m sorry that your understanding is so limited. That’s not a problem I can fix for you but indeed it is a problem,

 

[Toni]

Good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs are not naturally evolved plants growing wild in the forest; they are engineered products of human economic activity. They only exist at all because individual humans have reasons to produce them. The systemic barriers to equal access that your childish cartoon claims are unjust are in fact essential components of the social machinery that creates good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs in the first place. That's not feudalism. Heck, that's not even capitalism -- it's just reality. Even Lenin figured it out, after less than a year in power. You are proposing to beautify a skyscraper by dynamiting its first floor, because you find it ugly.

Exactly. The world runs on productive effort. The system needs to be set up such that it is rewarded. Every attempt to do anything else above the small community level has gone badly. And an equity approach inherently strips away such rewards.

Written like a programmer with zero experience or interest in the real world or human behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

I'm trying not to bristle, because I respect you and I think you're trying to be reasonable here.

On the other hand... what you think is a "better approach" isn't better for female human beings. You're essentially taking the position that women (female humans) should change our expectations with respect to single-sex facilities, and that we should just roll over and start expecting that males will be in our female spaces - regardless of whether we want them there or not. You're implying that women should relinquish our social conventions regardless of how uncomfortable or intimidated or at risk it makes us, in order to ensure that some males are more satisfied. And you present this as being "less intrusive" even though it's incredibly intrusive for women to be put into a position where we are expected to let strange males look at our nude bodies without consent, or where we're expected to tolerate being exposed to the penises of strange males without consent.

At the end of the day, whether you intend it or not, you're taking the position that women should surrender consent in favor of the desires of men.

Utter bullshit. Not only did I not present anything as less intrusive at this time, but the notion of changing expectations and social conventions means voluntary acceptance on the part of women and men.

ETA: Just had a thought. When you talk about changing expectations and conventions, are you intending to say that the law should not get involved, and society should just work it out, and whatever society finally lands on will be okay, even if that ultimately ends up being the retention of sex-based separation? If so, that's an entirely different direction than how I'm reading this, and I have an entirely different set of counters to that, largely focused around the premise that vigilante justice is a bad idea all around.

But... based on my initial interpretation of your post...

Does it allow for rejection? That's my concern, LD.

You frame this as if women should over time come to accept physically intact males being in female single-sex spaces, alter our expectations and conventions in order to accommodate them. I get where you're coming from, I really do.

But you don't seem to be giving any credence at all to the idea that it would be acceptable for women in general to retain our current expectations and conventions.

You're a prior assuming that changing our expectations and conventions to allow for males to use spaces where we're naked or vulnerable is the right and appropriate outcome, and it's just a matter of it taking some time. I'm not convinced that it's the right outcome at all, and I'm not convinced that it can result in a situation that doesn't increase risk to women.

Like I said, it may not be your intention. But that's how it's coming across. I'm saying "no, I do not consent" and you're more or less saying give it enough time and you'll say yes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think we need to take a step back from ideological generalizations. The real issues surrounding locker rooms and restrooms are far messier than the binary narratives we often impose. Before even bringing trans identities into the conversation, we should ask: What assumptions do we make about safety, comfort, and identity in shared spaces? Too often, we fall back on a simplistic rule—penises here, vaginas there—but that framework erases the wide and complex spectrum of lived realities.

Consider just a partial list of individuals who might occupy these spaces:

• Gay, straight, or intersex minors (male or female)
• Adults across all those same categories
• Survivors of sexual assault (male and female)
• People with body dysphoria, trauma, or anxiety
• Individuals with developmental or psychiatric conditions
• And yes, trans men and women

Do we really believe that every person in these overlapping groups will feel safe, comfortable, and unthreatened simply because they’ve been sorted into one side of a binary?

Speaking personally: I'm a cisgender male, I go to the gym almost every day, and I still don’t feel fully at ease in locker rooms. I’ve witnessed behavior that crossed boundaries, individuals lingering who clearly aren’t just there to change, and others visibly uncomfortable but silent. When I was younger, there were moments I genuinely felt afraid. I’m older and stronger now, less likely to be intimidated—but that doesn’t mean other cis men feel safe. Our identities don’t erase our vulnerabilities.

Fear, discomfort, and vulnerability in intimate public spaces don’t follow neat gender lines. A straight woman might feel uneasy around lesbians. A gay teenager might fear harassment from other boys. A trans person might worry about mockery or violence from both cis men and women. A Black man might feel watched or judged in a predominantly white locker room—and the reverse can also be true, where white individuals harbor unjustified fears about sharing space with Black people. These dynamics are real and shaped by personal history, culture, and context. They cannot be solved by rigid identity rules or simplistic bathroom policies.

And once we start excluding people based on perceived threat or discomfort, where exactly do we draw the line? If trans individuals are singled out today, will lesbians or gay men be next? Will racial minorities face renewed exclusion tomorrow? We’ve seen this slope before—where fear is used to justify segregation under the guise of safety, morality, or tradition. Again and again, political actors seize on these anxieties not to address real issues, but to manufacture outrage, divide the public, and distract from systemic failures. It’s a pattern we should all recognize—and refuse to play into.

We have to stop pretending there’s a “perfect” locker room arrangement that will eliminate all fear, discomfort, or risk. There isn’t. People are complicated. Public spaces are messy. If we truly care about both inclusion and safety, we should be expanding privacy, rethinking spatial design, and acknowledging individual variation—not drawing harder lines between groups. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more it seems the best solution may be a return to individualized facilities. Maybe the 18th-century outhouse had one thing right: a private space, used one person at a time, avoids a lot of these modern identity battles.

But in the meantime, there’s little serious effort to redesign public spaces with privacy or inclusivity in mind—because solving these problems isn’t the point. Too often, those in power gain more from fueling cultural division than from pursuing practical solutions. By turning deeply personal issues into public battlegrounds, they deflect attention away from structural inaction and redirect public energy toward infighting. What we’re left with is a cycle of manufactured outrage, where fear is weaponized but never resolved. This isn’t about protection—it’s about control. And the longer we accept this kind of political weaponization, the further we are from anything resembling safety or peace of mind.

 

[Emily Lake]

Caster Semenya won a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday in her seven-year legal fight against track and field’s sex eligibility rules.

She was assigned female at birth, was raised as a girl, identifies as female, but was banned from competition because she has a DSD which has resulted in her body naturally producing more testosterone than is a typical for a female, and she refused to take drugs to suppress it.

World Athletics, led by its president Sebastian Coe, has said its rules maintain fairness because Semenya has an unfair, male-like athletic advantage from her higher testosterone. Semenya argues her testosterone is a genetic gift.

Semenya has 5-ARD, which is a DSD that ONLY males can have. Semenya is a male of the human species.

Sex assigned at birth is central to this controversy.

Sex at birth isn't assigned, it's observed and documented. Sometimes the observation is inaccurately, but it's still an observation. Hell, in developed countries it's usually observed several months prior to birth!

Realistically, sex isn't "assigned" at all. It's determined. And in humans, it's determined when the sperm breaches the egg wall.

You might think Semenya is male, but she is/was declared female on her birth certificate, was raised as a female in her family and society, and identifies as a female.

I believe it is more accurate to say Semenya is an intersex female rather than to simply declare her to be male.

You can believe whatever you want. 5-ARD is a condition that can ONLY occur in males. It cannot occur in females. Most infants with 5-ARD have a very small penis and a divided scrotal sac at birth, but some will have internal testes and a blind vaginal pouch. During puberty, their penises will grow, even though they're often materially smaller than is typical for a male. In many 5-ARD males, their testes will descend during puberty, and most are not sterile - they may have reduced sperm count and other related complications that reduce fertility, but they're not actually sterile, and their fertility can be boosted through treatment if desired.

What would be factually accurate would be to say that Semenya is a male with a disorder of sexual development that resulted in ambiguous or misleading genitals being recorded at birth.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm talking about the harm caused by the two approaches.

What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about two approaches. I'm talking about two different things.
Sex is one thing, gender is another thing.
Tom

Fundamentally, this comes down to whether people use the bathroom of their anatomy or their presentation.

Fundamentally, it comes down to whether you believe that a male donning a dress and putting on some lipstick masks their sex... or whether you think women should be compelled to pretend that the male-shaped male who has male secondary sex characteristics and male facial features is actually indistinguishable from a female.