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

[bilby]

And institutions have to have policies that abide by the law and set social norms.

Single sex spaces does actually mean single sex.

Single sex spaces does actually mean the individual user decides for themselves whether they qualify.

Unless you want to start employing bathroom police to inspect everyone's genitals before they are allowed to pee.

 

[bilby]

And if someone wearing a dress walks into the men’s room, uses a stall, washes their hands, and leaves, who are you, or I, or anyone else, to challenge them?

Why should that be a problem?

It isn't. Who suggested that it could be?

 

[WAB]

That 15 year old school boys routinely beat Women's world records is a matter of fact.

That doesn't mean female athletes aren't exceptional.

But male physiology confers such an advantage in most sports, that direct competition between makes and females is unfair.

Segregating most sports by sex is a way to celebrate and reward exceptional female athletes.

The top female athletes out perform a few billion males. But in most sports a few thousand males can put perform them.

Hence the need for sex segregated sports.

The exact same argument justifies left handed people having segregated sport. But we don't have that, because having segregated sports based on physiology is a fundamentally stupid idea.

You genuinely think that segregating sport by sex is a fundamentally stupid idea?

Then you're beyond reason.

The women themselves only want to play against women!

Well yeah, but it's not important what the women want.

 

[Politesse]

"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?

 

[Politesse]

It's also a massive red herring to focus on DSD conditions when there's no questions about the biological sex of the overwhelming majority of trans people.

There's no question about the gender of the "overwhelming majority of trans people" either. Or intersex people, or any other sort of people discriminated against by the law. They are a tiny, tiny proportion of the population, with very little political voice, which is the very reason they are being targeted.

 

[seanie]

If someone thinks she's a woman, and so chooses to use a women's restroom, then she is respecting womens' rights to women only spaces.

Well, not if they’re a man.

Because let’s face it, being a man is a defining feature of being a trans woman.

Women can’t be transwomen.

 

[seanie]

"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.

 

[seanie]

And institutions have to have policies that abide by the law and set social norms.

Single sex spaces does actually mean single sex.

Single sex spaces does actually mean the individual user decides for themselves whether they qualify.

Unless you want to start employing bathroom police to inspect everyone's genitals before they are allowed to pee.

Well no, single sex means single sex, not mixed sex: males go in the male space, females in the female space.

People just need to respect the rules and behave accordingly.

 

[seanie]

Public restrooms are a distraction. For the most part they’re not a managed space.

Where this ruling really kicks in is managed spaces: hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms in gyms and leisure centres, sports.

If providers have separate male and female provision in these areas, they are required by law to manage them on the basis of biological sex, not self-ID.

Because single sex does actually mean single sex, not go wherever you want to.

 

[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?

"Every heire is either a male, a female, or an hermaphrodite, that is both male and female. And an hermaphrodite (which is also called Androgynus) shall be heire, either as male or female, according to that kind of sexe which doth prevaile." - Edward Coke, Institutes of the Lawes of England, 1628

 

[Bomb#20]

Giving males the right to access female spaces, removes the rights of women to have single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

I didn't realize those were rights.

This entire line of particular discussion, in my view, was prompted by the issue of transwomen in women's bathrooms. Certainly if women have rights to single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety or fairness, then so do transwomen, and men, and ____.

"Certainly". What argument makes that certain?

Suppose someone, call him Tony, asserts that black people have a right to have their race taken into account as a positive attribute in faculty appointments. Suppose someone else, call her Lauren, replies "Certainly if black people have a right to preferential treatment in some job spaces, then so do white people, and Asians, and ___. Which jobs should being white be taken into account as a positive attribute for?". Would you agree with Lauren that that's "certain"?

 

[seanie]

Everyone has a right to be treated fairly, and with dignity and respect.

But single sex spaces, particular for women, exist for their privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

They don’t exist as spaces to validate the feelings of men who identify as women.

They have to go elsewhere.

 

[laughing dog]

Giving males the right to access female spaces, removes the rights of women to have single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

I didn't realize those were rights.

This entire line of particular discussion, in my view, was prompted by the issue of transwomen in women's bathrooms. Certainly if women have rights to single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety or fairness, then so do transwomen, and men, and ____.

"Certainly". What argument makes that certain?

Suppose someone, call him Tony, asserts that black people have a right to have their race taken into account as a positive attribute in faculty appointments. Suppose someone else, call her Lauren, replies "Certainly if black people have a right to preferential treatment in some job spaces, then so do white people, and Asians, and ___. Which jobs should being white be taken into account as a positive attribute for?". Would you agree with Lauren that that's "certain"?

Based on the premise _______ people have a right to preferential treatment to some job spaces,then yes. But I don’t accept that as a right.

On the other hand, safety, privacy and dignity seem to me to be rights everyone should have under the law.

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone has a right to be treated fairly, and with dignity and respect.

But single sex spaces, particular for women, exist for their privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

They don’t exist as spaces to validate the feelings of men who identify as women.

They have to go elsewhere.

Certainly in Scotland, since that is current law.

But I thought restrooms are around for people to use for personal hygiene.

 

[Politesse]

"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?

"Every heire is either a male, a female, or an hermaphrodite, that is both male and female. And an hermaphrodite (which is also called Androgynus) shall be heire, either as male or female, according to that kind of sexe which doth prevaile." - Edward Coke, Institutes of the Lawes of England, 1628

And you don't see how that obviously contradicts this ruling?

 

[seanie]

The law has moved on a little since 1628.

 

[Politesse]

The law has moved on a little since 1628.

Then why fucking quote it at me? I wasn't asking about 1628.

 

[TomC]

If someone thinks she's a woman, and so chooses to use a women's restroom, then she is respecting womens' rights to women only spaces.

A male might feel like a woman, and under the vast majority of circumstances it doesn't matter. A tiny handful of situations are different like public restrooms and sports leagues. Apparently, now it needs addressing in the government sphere. I'm assuming that Scottish law is reserving a few seats for female women so as to better represent the whole electorate, in an Affirmative Action sort of way. I don't see the problem with that.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Well, Australia is worse.

You actually mean Australia is better.

We're not abolishing women's restrooms.

We're just restricting them to females.

No males, however they identify.

Except they are no longer male. It is nothing to do with how they identify.

If transwomen (i.e. men) are allowed in, then it is not open season for men to come in.

Of course it is.
All a dude has to do to get access to the women's spaces is declare "I feel like a woman right now!"

That's it.
Tom

This is being silly.

A persons' sex is not remotely complicated 99.98% of the time, and everyone, regardless of DSDs, is either male or female.

And it's irrelevant to the issue of trans gender identity, because the entire point of being trans is not identifying as your actual sex. You have to be aware of you sex to identify otherwise.

Which is fine.

Mostly.

But sometime a person's actual sex does matter.

Except that their "new sex" is their actual sex.

Who’s policing restrooms?

We’re asking people to respect women’s right to women only spaces.

You and me both.

But trying to explain that to the local trans ideologists is like trying to explain biology to a young earth creationist.
It can be amusing, but generally not productive.
Tom

Who is being the ideologue here? History will decide, just as it has regarding other issues such as homophobia and racism.
Your attempted analogy is pathetic. especially considering that the topic of sex in biology is much more complex than you know.

I think there are different things being discussed here: I absolutely respect the rights of trans individuals to use the bathroom they wish to use. And the locker rooms they feel comfortable using.

At the same time, I respect the right of all individuals to not be unclothed or exposed to other individuals who are unclothed if that person makes them uncomfortable.

I wonder how many men posting here would have been happy to have a trans man early in their transition, with a female appearing body in their shower rooms when they were adolescents? Now imagine you’ve been abused by your mom or your aunt or your baby sitter or a nun. And there’s someone who looks like a woman in your locker room, making sure you shower well enough.

He’ll, imagine taking a shower in the men’s locker room at your local gym and I walk in. Regardless of what you post now here on a forum in whatever state of dress or undress you prefer, I bet at least half of you would be uncomfortable and even more uncomfortable if I took my clothes off.

Which is different than if I walked into a gender neutral shower area. In a gender neutral locker room/rest room/ shower, one would reasonably expect that one would see people of genders different than your own. It would not seem to be a violation of your privacy.

 

[TomC]

I dare say anyone here who is a parent of a daughter would be unhappy if their daughters were expected to share showers with men or post pubescent boys. I would be outraged. Nor would I expect my sons to share showers with girls or women.

It really is a cultural thing to a huge extent. I have literally showered with a middle aged woman, her(studly) son, while also chatting with son's wife and prepubescent nephew. But it was a naturist resort and everyone knew everyone else. Apparently, a lot of people, especially Nordic European people, think that American people are bizarrely uptight on the subject of casual nudity. But the fact remains that we are. My mom would have been outraged if a person of penage appeared in a public shower with her, and she is by far the norm in this country.
Tom