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

[Politesse]

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?

What a lot of posters won’t admit is that someone wearing a dress in a men’s bathroom would be more likely to be subjected to some form of harassment, if not violence than someone who had a male appearance and was wearing a typical male wardrobe. Regardless of what is under the clothing of the person in a skirt or the person in a pair of pants.

Sure, I wish that everybody felt free and comfortable with their bodies and other people’s bodies but the fact is that people have different needs for modesty and some of those needs are dependent upon developmental stage. Few women would be upset at a little boy in the women’s bathroom or shower room. They’d be more upset at a 16 year old boy in the same space. Even the most open woman would likely prefer more privacy if they were menstruating, recovering from childbirth, had had a mastectomy, for some examples.

Children are less likely to be upset at the sight of a naked adult ( unless this is forbidden in their home) compared with an adolescent.

They don't care if people get raped, unless it serves their wider agenda. If the victim isn't a white, cis woman or girl, they can't use her for their anti-trans propaganda.

 

[seanie]

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.

 

[seanie]

Sex is an evolved reproductive strategy.

Humans are gonochoric.

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

A person sex is a material fact, it is immutable, and in some situations it matters.

 

[Politesse]

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.

That still isn't an answer to the question. If we are relying on the state to tell us what gender we are permitted to express, what company we are allowed to keep, what rooms we are allowed to occupy and so forth, it is not unreasonable to ask about the criteria they will use to make that determination. Specifics, not vague ideological insistences. 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?

 

[seanie]

It’s nothing to do with what “gender we are permitted to express”.

It’s about biological sex, which is a material fact, and that matters in some circumstances

If anyone is in doubt as to their biological sex, then they’re a danger to themselves.

 

[seanie]

I mean , the ruling is pretty clear.

Express you gender however you want, and that is still protected under the Equality Act.

But single sex spaces, allowed under the Equality Act in some circumstances, mean biological sex.

This is not unclear or confusing.

 

[TomC]

So should the double rapist have been sent to the women’s prison to protect their dignity, safety, and fairness?

You avoided answering the question.

The problem with the context is that it revolves around people who have given up their rights by committing crimes plus the ugliness of prison rape.
It's really got little in common with women's sense of comfort and security behind a door labeled "women" in a public venue like a store or something.
Tom

 

[seanie]

Have a unit for trans women sex offenders.

How is that degrading?

 

[Politesse]

It’s nothing to do with what “gender we are permitted to express”.

It’s about biological sex, which is a material fact, and that matters in some circumstances

If anyone is in doubt as to their biological sex, then they’re a danger to themselves.

That isn't even their responsilibility to know, it's the government's responsibility according to you. So I am asking you, in plain English, how the government "knows", and you cannot or will not answer. You would probably refuse to drop your own trousers for a policemen to inspect your junk, or submit to an involuntary blood test, but you're casual about stripping others of their rights. You don't know, and do not want to know, how the laws you support are actually enforced.

The new "Left Wing'' simping for Big Brother as usual...

 

[seanie]

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.

 

[seanie]

And to suggest people shouldn’t have to know what sex they are is bizarre.

Firstly, because they should know, and secondly because it could matter to them in medical emergencies.

Anyone how denies their biological sex is potentially putting themselves in danger.

 

[bilby]

Are you seriously suggesting sending the double rapist into a women’s prison would be the right thing to do?

It could be, if (for example),

Rapists typically go on segregation wings.

As prisoners are, by their incarceration, rendered unable to adequately defend themselves (eg by running away from an assailant), it is a duty of any prison system to defend its inmates from each other, hence those segregation wings.

If they work, then sending this person to a womens prison or a mens prison is a wash - they can't rape anyone when they get there anyway.

If they don't work, then your prison system has far bigger problems to worry about than how inmates prefer to identify.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

And again, this obsession with public toilets.

There are other situations where this matters more.

 

[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.

This is not totalitarianism.

This is perfectly reasonable.

 

[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.

 

[laughing dog]

So should the double rapist have been sent to the women’s prison to protect their dignity, safety, and fairness?

You avoided answering the question.

I wasn’t asked that question, so it was not possible to avoid answering it.

After you give your head a successful wobble, meaningful discussion might be possible.

I think that if a woman double rapist would be sent to a woman’s prison, then a transwoman should be. But with extra precautions.

 

[bilby]

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.