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

[Emily Lake]

There's another option - private spaces.

Why are we asking people to share spaces in which they want "Privacy, dignity, safety, and fairness" at all?

Why, if I want a shower after working out, am I required to share a space in which I want privacy (and dignity, and safety) with anyone else at all?

My bathroom at home isn't a mens or womens bathroom; It's just used by one person at a time. Why public facilities cannot be managed the same way, leading to greater levels of privacy, dignity, safety and fairness, I do not know.

It seems to be partly a matter of cost, but more a hangover of a past age of communal living. Privacy is a relative novelty*, and dignity and safety were always restricted to the powerful in communal spaces. At school they kept the girls separated from the boys, but gave no thought to separating the bullies from their victims; Dignity and safety were notable by their absence.

It's funny. I run across this argument all the time from men. Once in a while, a woman will advocate for entirely private single-serving spaces... but far more often it's men.

Men use bathrooms differently than women do. I've been told dozens of times that men don't have conversations in the toilet, they don't hang out, they usually don't even make eye contact. They go in, do their business, and leave with as little interaction as they can manage.

Women don't do that. We interact in bathrooms in a very different way. We'll have conversations in bathrooms that we would never have if there were men around. We help each other with clothing, we deal with menstrual accidents - sometimes that means we're washing skivvies in a sink and drying them under the hand dryer. And in some venues, like night clubs or bars, we use bathrooms to get away from men who won't leave us alone. And we have discussions with other female friends - or complete strangers even - when we're being hassled by a man, or pressured by a man, or just want back-up against an over-eager dude.

When men come along with this brilliant "solution" of entirely private spaces, what you're doing is asserting that women should alter our behavior to conform with a male norm. The solution you propose is for women to just knock of being women and start acting like men.

 

[laughing dog]

In the same way that allowing blacks to use public facilities excludes racists from using them.

I hate this stupid trope. It's nothing like racism.

Refusing to provide a race specific restroom doesn't keep racists from using the restroom. It just means that they don't have special rights.
Tom

Just like giving men legal rights to use a woman's rest room does not exclude any woman from using the room.

Hooray for legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism! It's the best thing ever, why on earth didn't we do this sooner, it will make so many men so happy!

Are you postings drunk, because that is a really stupid straw man.

 

[Emily Lake]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

But far better would be to drop the "female" category in favour of sporting divisions based on relevant and measurable attributes. Height, weight, reach, muscle-fat ratio, or lung peak flow would make a better basis for classification in sport than gender.

Having women's and men's teams is a tradition, not a law of nature.

Most men cannot compete in elite men's sports. That no women can either is not a justification for a separate 'women only' competition, it's a justification for a "less than elite" competition, or better still a whole hierarchy of them. And in most sports, such hierarchies already exist.

Pound for pound, inch for inch, males are stronger than females. It's not "tradition", it's a result of us being a sexually dimorphic species whose actual bodies are different. We have different pelvises, our femurs attach at a different angle, our waists are located in different areas of our torso, we have different muscle and tendon attachment points, some of our internal organs are arranged in slightly different ways, our brow bones and orbital openings are shaped differently. Women aren't just small men.

 

[laughing dog]

It is. Everyone is male or female….

Except when they aren’t, as the rest of your response tacitly acknowledges.

Making persistent factually incorrect statements makes your position appear wilfully ignorant. Which is a shame, since as you persistently insist that “sex is binary” is irrelevant to the OP issue.

 

[bilby]

They would, by law, have to admit a male attracted to females in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate saying they were legally female.

Like I said, I'm not familiar with Scotland.
I had no idea that Scotsmen were such weinies.

Around here, in the good Ole USA, if a dude tried to force his way into a lesbian group he'd be in for a world of hurt. You think that those chicks won't take you out back and beat the fuck out of you? And if you don't give up and go away, you might drown while one pees down your throat?
Apparently, we live in different worlds. You Scotsmen better learn to mind your manners,

Or else...
Tom

I wouldn't take that bet right now. I mean, I would generally consider Aussie sheila's to be pretty brawny on the whole... but Sall Grover set up a female-only app for lesbians that used facial recognition to exclude males... and got taken to court by a dude who named himself "Tickle" because her app wouldn't let him join.

Nope. She got taken to court because after the app DID let Tickle join, and they had been actively using it for some time, their membership was suddenly removed without warning or reason.

He won that suit, and now Sall's app has to let men in if they want to use it.

A salutory warning to anyone who thinks that a computer (or a human) can determine what somebody's genitals look like, just from looking at their face.

 

[Emily Lake]

I prefer the original system, where it's not policed at all, and everyone decides for themselves whether they are in the right restroom.

That wasn't the original system.

The original system was that the restrooms were separated on the basis of sex. We all knew it, and we all generally abided by that convention. And we all knew and understood what the expectation was - and we knew that if someone transgressed those conventions they were in the wrong. If a man came into a women's restroom, every woman in the vicinity knew he was either confused or up to no good. We would usually assume confused, and politely let him know he was in the ladies - with the expectation that he'd about face and find the men's. If he did NOT immediately leave, we could raise a stink, make some noise, and enlist the assistance of anyone and everyone in the near vicinity to evict him. We could report him to management or to the cops, and they would take our side.

We had the right to expect men to leave, and society was on our side in that.

Once in a while, a transsexual would come in. And despite the narrative, most do not pass at anything more than a glancing look. We could usually tell they were males... but as long as they were minding their own business, keeping their eyes to themselves, and were clearly trying to not make anyone uncomfortable, we would leave them their dignity. But it was at our discretion, on a case by case basis. And we had the comfort of knowing that if he got out of line, it was our prerogative to ask them to leave.

It was never "everyone decides for themselves".

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure, but they don't need to be segregated spaces. We don't have or need women only streets, or parks, or cinemas.

Women aren't usually naked or partially unclothed on the streets, in the parks or at the cinema.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most transsexuals use bathrooms without other users even being aware that a transsexual is present.

Bullshit.

 

[Emily Lake]

We all start out with ability to develop into male or female phenotype depending on certain signals. Usually, these signals are clear and you get the common binary development. But sometimes the signals cross and you get intersex individuals. I think trans individuals, at least those truly trans and not just those who take on a "nonbinary" persona because it's trendy, have something similar happen regarding brain, rather than urogenital, development.

Brains don't differentiate by sex during fetal development.

 

[Emily Lake]

Separating women from men might reduce somewhat the number of assaults and indignities people suffer, but it sure as shit doesn't eliminate them. Rapes and sexual assaults occur in male only and female only spaces

It reduces them to such an enormous degree that it is pragmatic and reasonable. It's effective as often as condoms are.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex is determined at fertilisation by which chromosome the sperm contributes: an x or y.

Sex is usually first observed at the 12 week scan, because by that stage it’s obvious which developmental pathway an embryo has gone down: male or female.

And at birth sex is recorded, because 99.98%of the time it’s absolutely obvious.

None of this is hard.

Technically, sex is determined by the presence of the SRY gene and an active androgen receptor. It just happens that in normal humans, those are on the Y chromosome. Other than that, you're spot on.

And yes, none of this is hard.

 

[Emily Lake]

In the same way that allowing blacks to use public facilities excludes racists from using them.

I hate this stupid trope. It's nothing like racism.

Refusing to provide a race specific restroom doesn't keep racists from using the restroom. It just means that they don't have special rights.
Tom

Just like giving men legal rights to use a woman's rest room does not exclude any woman from using the room.

Hooray for legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism! It's the best thing ever, why on earth didn't we do this sooner, it will make so many men so happy!

Are you postings drunk, because that is a really stupid straw man.

It's the consequence of giving men the legal right to use women's restrooms on the basis of their magic words.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is. Everyone is male or female….

Except when they aren’t, as the rest of your response tacitly acknowledges.

Making persistent factually incorrect statements makes your position appear wilfully ignorant. Which is a shame, since as you persistently insist that “sex is binary” is irrelevant to the OP issue.

Every human is male or female. In some extremely rare situations it's difficult to discern whether a specific individual is male or female, but none of them are actually both, and none of them are neither, and none of them are some new and different sex.

And not a single bit of that has anything at all to do with gender identity issues.

 

[laughing dog]

In the same way that allowing blacks to use public facilities excludes racists from using them.

I hate this stupid trope. It's nothing like racism.

Refusing to provide a race specific restroom doesn't keep racists from using the restroom. It just means that they don't have special rights.
Tom

Just like giving men legal rights to use a woman's rest room does not exclude any woman from using the room.

Hooray for legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism! It's the best thing ever, why on earth didn't we do this sooner, it will make so many men so happy!

Are you postings drunk, because that is a really stupid straw man.

It's the consequence of giving men the legal right to use women's restrooms on the basis of their magic words.

It is a possible consequence in some cases.

 

[laughing dog]

It is. Everyone is male or female….

Except when they aren’t, as the rest of your response tacitly acknowledges.

Making persistent factually incorrect statements makes your position appear wilfully ignorant. Which is a shame, since as you persistently insist that “sex is binary” is irrelevant to the OP issue.

Every human is male or female. In some extremely rare situations it's difficult to discern whether a specific individual is male or female, but none of them are actually both, and none of them are neither, and none of them are some new and different sex.

Nope.

 

[ZiprHead]

In the same way that allowing blacks to use public facilities excludes racists from using them.

I hate this stupid trope. It's nothing like racism.

Refusing to provide a race specific restroom doesn't keep racists from using the restroom. It just means that they don't have special rights.
Tom

Just like giving men legal rights to use a woman's rest room does not exclude any woman from using the room.

Hooray for legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism! It's the best thing ever, why on earth didn't we do this sooner, it will make so many men so happy!

I've never seen a naked mans junk in a men's restroom. Why would I see it in a woman's rest room?

ETA: Why would I see a women's junk in a rest room?

 

[Politesse]

Sex is determined at fertilisation by which chromosome the sperm contributes: an x or y.

Sex is usually first observed at the 12 week scan, because by that stage it’s obvious which developmental pathway an embryo has gone down: male or female.

And at birth sex is recorded, because 99.98%of the time it’s absolutely obvious.

None of this is hard.

So which is it: sex is solely chromosomal, or sex is solely sex assigned at birth?

 

[Politesse]

The legal position isn't that sex is "assigned at birth" . It's that sex is a material fact that can be established. For the vast majority of people that will simply be their sex recorded at birth, but even if that isn't the case, and a person has a DSD, their sex can still be established, because sex is binary and immutable.

And since the law has long recognised there are situations where single sex spaces or services are required, for reasons of privacy, safety, dignity, or fairness, then sex in the Equality Act 2010 has to be understood as biological sex.

Otherwise the Act would be produce unworkable and perverse results.

If you define sex as strictly chromosomal and binary and require all law to follow that definition, many men and women will be forced by law to use bathrooms, showers, sporting facilities, etc, that correspond to the opposite of either their expressed or perceived gender. Emily's "horror scenario" of seeing a penis in a locker room is now what the law requires of many individuals.

Why are you so invested in forcing women to be subjected to male exhibitionism without consent?

I am, of course, not. You are the one trying to use the power of an authoritarian state to take away the right of citizens to choose what room is most appropriate for their situation, men and women alike. I would not support forcing anyone to do anything they do not choose to do, personally. Why do you?

 

[Toni]

You did t really reply to my question or perhaps I wasn’t clear: what do you suppose would have happened to an adolescent girl in that locker room?

Why would my opinion matter? It's fairly obvious that she would suffer indignity at the very least, and whether and how seriously she would be assaulted would depend on a number of factors.

None of which has any relevance whatsoever to what I was saying when you went off on this tangent.

I am saying that if we, as a society, wish to protect people from indignity, assault, or abuse when they are naked and vulnerable, then separating males from females is a weird place to stop, throw up our hands, and say "we've done enough".

Separating women from men might reduce somewhat the number of assaults and indignities people suffer, but it sure as shit doesn't eliminate them. Rapes and sexual assaults occur in male only and female only spaces; And any protection sufficient to eliminate such unisex assaults will, necessarily, also eliminate assaults by men on women, too.

The strange idea that men don't humiliate, abuse or assault men, and women don't humiliate, abuse, or assault women - or the stranger idea that such abuses don't matter, and need not be protected against - is at the heart of this entire stupid debate.

I don't care if you are male, female, transsexual, intersex, or an alien from Tau Ceti. I don't want you staring at me or making rude comments while I shower. I certaiy don't want you to sexually assault me. And the only way to prevent that is to provide privacy.

Communal locker rooms and showers are a cost saving measure. They don't prevent sexual harrassment or assault of users, even if they are 100% segregated, and regardless of the criteria used to enforce segregation.

Segregation by sex, and sex alone, is a hangover of a C19th mindset in which boys are expected to find sexual harrasment from other boys "character building", while girls are considered incapable of sexually assaulting other girls. Neither is true.

Your argument seems to be that if men and boys cannot be protected from men and boys, then neither can women and girls.

Again, as I have repeatedly stated, I believe that all individuals should have access to private spaces for toileting, showering and changing clothes.

Generally speaking, girls and women are better able to defend themselves against other girls compared with defending themselves against physical or sexual assaults by males.

Statistics indicate that most sexual assaults are committed by males, no matter the sex or gender of the victim. Certainly sexual assaults committed by females are likely underreported as are sexual assaults committed against males. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are more likely to be victims of assault, sexual assault and otherwise.

It seems obvious that we are not doing anything close to adequately addressing the issue of sexual assault.

But that aside, some individuals are never going to be comfortable being unclothed in front of other people and that number goes up when we are talking about individuals of different sexes and genders.

Some individuals will act out to cover their discomfort by behaving aggressively towards other individuals. Some individuals are simply assholes, bullies, tend towards violence and other misbehavior for a variety of reasons.

All of this needs to be addressed. Even and perhaps especially the fact that most adolescents and preadolescents are uncomfortable with their own bodies and the bodies of others and this can lead to all sorts of inappropriate behavior. Opportunity for privacy as well as competent and sensitive adult supervision seems necessary if difficult to achieve.

But it seems that allowing individuals with male appearing bodies access to locker rooms primarily or exclusively used by individuals with female appearing bodies will increase the potential for discomfort, trauma and assault against females.

All of this needs to be addressed! But refusing to protect females until everyone is safe is not the way to go.

 

[bilby]

Your argument seems to be that if men and boys cannot be protected from men and boys, then neither can women and girls.

No, my argument is that we should protect people from assault and abuse, and that merely protecting a subset of people from another subset of people is woefully inadequate as an achievement, and even more inadequate as a goal.