The court is really saying that the lawmakers did not specify properly what they meant in certain cases and that they should probably modify those sections (they are carefully not to tell Parliament what to do), which can be done and does sometimes get done when such things crop up.
Yes, the act (as it should) protects people from discrimination based on gender reassignment, e.g. you can't fire someone for their gender identity or deny them from a service.
The act makes it illegal to discriminate against someone due to their "sex", but a portion of the act allowed for "single sex" spaces where there is reasonable grounds to have them, but the act (reasonably at the time) did not define what sex was.
A piece of Scottish legislation referred to "woman as defined by the Equality Act", but the Equality Act never said if it was referring to biological sex or gender identity, the Scottish government said it would include people with gender reassignment certificates, a "woman's rights" charity disagreed. Hence the court got involved and found the original intention was to refer to biological sex, which was confirmed by the politician that introduced the Equality Act (Harriet Harman).
- Lord Filkin, the Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 (18th December)
MRKH syndrome is a disorder of female sex development, and if you look at this from the perspective of developmental biology it's clear that anyone affected by this must be a woman. I feel it shouldn't be too hard an idea to struggle with.
That they have a working womb transplant technique is impressive from a medical technology point of view but I think not enough has been said about the ethics of this experimentation.
Personally I wouldn't risk exposing my baby to transplant anti-rejection drugs. We don't know how this may impact the short-term or long-term health of the baby.
The woman in question is a woman because her sexual differentiation followed the female pathway. Just because in her case that pathway led to a DSD variant doesn’t undo the rest of her female development or make her a little bit less of a woman, or male, or a third sex.
The other three I've commonly seen are:
(1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate
(2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY
and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery.
(also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
> trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB.
Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women."
e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century.
It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing.
It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard)
> Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women."
1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces.
2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition.
Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills.
If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language.
I am also not labelling *you* transphobic at all. It was quite obvious that you are not, even before you stated you are a trans woman. Fun fact: myself, gender fluid. (Huh, first time I've said that in a pubic forum with my name on it…)
When I wrote:
> Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces.
This sentence is not about you. It's a much more general observation, noting what is wrong with *the public discourse*, specifically that transphobes insist on certain definitions which end up with outcomes that they themselves are dissatisfied with.
> RHPS
While I also watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show in my teens (late 90s), that film (1975) predates me by so much, I wasn't sure if they used "transvestite" to mean "cross dressing" or "transgender". Where I first used the word "transvestite" to your objection, I meant specifically what is also called "cross dressing", because I was talking about *outward appearance in public*, and clothes are the outward appearance in public.
That and hair, I guess. My hair is long enough I've had at least one straight guy get half way through a wolf-whistle before noticing a beard. At least, I assume they were straight, given the appearance of a beard was simultaneous with them stopping.
From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it.
What did I miss?
I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory.
Where I wrote above:
> current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public
That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion.
("vest" as in vestments, clothing).
In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment.
The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse.
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there.
from the law
> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,
“is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.
It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.
Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy?
Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?
For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization.
At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate,[2] and none of this has anything to do with the social construct of gender.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am...
[2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr...
>What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway?
You've managed to provide 0 tests that conclusively answer the question.
Did you know there is no conclusive test for Alzheimer’s, IBS, migraines, and dozens more physical conditions, nor for any psychiatric condition? Do you think these aren’t real, or that they cannot be discerned to a useful degree of accuracy?
Besides that, there are things you can determine with certainty: The presence of a substance in blood for example
Do you think natural phenomena don’t exist or can’t be useful unless there is a simple test to grant you the details?
If you're still human if you're born without legs then clearly neither genetic or developmental traits determine someone's humanity.
So at what point do we call someone a woman born without a uterus? When a 'normal' pregnancy would have resulted in them having a uterus? When different genetics would have resulted in them having a uterus? Or when she herself complains that she lacks a uterus?
Here's another one for you, given how many people care about XX/XY as a distinction of gender: Humans have 46 chromosomes, but by this definition, about 0.6–1.0% of live births from human mothers are of individuals who aren't human.
Language is a tool we use to create categories, don't let language use you. Insisting that everything in reality must conform to the categories that language already has, is mistaking the map for the territory.
English: Times, German: Mal or Zeiten.
"Every time" is "jedes Mal", but "good times" is "gute Zeiten". "Three times four" uses "mal".
And every time a new thing gets invented, found, or imported, neologisms pop up, or words get borrowed from other cultures. In English, robins are said to have "red breasts", because the colour orange had not yet been coined when the bird needed a name, because the fruit after which the colour is named had not yet arrived.
People also argue about if "vegetarian hamburgers" is a sensible term, as if the "ham" implies meat, even though (1) the meat varieties usually use beef, and (2) it's named after the place Hamburg.
Before the development of hormonal and surgical solutions, the only thing trans people could do was change their clothes. At some point, the medical options are so capable that any given previous definition of gender becomes malleable. A womb implant is one such option.
I really don't.
As I say in such discussions, "you're only allowed to call them 'hamburgers' if they're from the Hamburg region, otherwise it's just a sparkling fried patty".
See also: https://xkcd.com/3075/
You're not allowed to be in the middle anymore.
People love to be "in the middle" and thus "reasonable".
Are you an extremist or a moderate? Because I can get along with a moderate person on the left, right, or anywhere in between. By the same token extremists regardless of stripe are unbearable.
What often happens is that a "supreme" court like this will file an opinion attempting to clarify the meaning as best they can, but it really requires a statutory amendment by the legislators to fix it. Often that is what happens next.
Physical "sex" is never only binary.
1 in 1500 births is DSD and not binary (aka intersex but that term is outdated)
The woman in this example is DSD
There are dozens of different types of women who are DSD
Some women who are DSD would most definitely fail most genetics tests to prove "women" (like the SRY test that some sports federations use)
Yet some of the women who "fail" SRY tests can give birth, typically using a donated egg or in this case other organs because their organs are either damaged or cancerous from partially activated SRY, etc.
1 in 1500 is a LOT of people
Every time you hear a "bathroom assigned at birth" harassment, realize they are also oppressing millions of women who are DSD, not just transgender
about 1 in 2000 births have less than 4 limbs but i don't see anybody claiming its a spectrum.
Not intending to debate the ethics of abortion, but one of the reasons foetuses are aborted is due to disability, down syndrome being a notable example.
You made a claim, but without evidence. Iceland is a population, that demonstrates the contrary.
Not saying you're wrong, but the second sentence is suspect and it's not interesting to argue about why.
Here’s a poll of Americans that includes a question about aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. 44% of pro-choice respondents oppose it. I’m not wrong and there’s no reason to find that sentence suspect. https://www.kofc.org/en/resources/communications/polls/maris...
I think it's a microcosm that is more aware of the effects than a population who (mistakenly) thinks the decisions they make are the reasons they experience specific effects, as opposed to the flow of individuals in and out of a virtual bounds of a larger population with very minor influence on socio-political issues.
Good luck with whatever.
> trans people
Those populations have very little to do with each other - if anything.
You can even mix and match with which parts are present vs absent. I know someone with an arm that stops just above the elbow but still has several (usable!) fingers extending from it. So no joint, but sorta-yes hand.
the humans with intersex conditions themselves object the term, as it tags them as sick, a "disease". their personal experience based political interventions have lead to the prohibition of cosmetic surgeries on genitals of minors, or forced hormonal sex assignment on minors, in several European countries that is. so they can decide on their own when they are old enough. that's all the personally affected humans ask for, for the next generation: let them be as they are and allow them to decide on their own.
Some people who are DSD take great pride in being non-binary.
People who are DSD have been documented for CENTURIES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_people_in_history
But that's my whole point, "sex" a spectrum and it's one of the big lies perpetuated by people who insist everything was known and set in stone, when their bible was invented, despite never having microscopes or telescopes or even eyeglasses
kindergarten level logic fails at physiological sex ambiguity.
and it fails even more so at gender identity issues.
I can tell you that in Czechia and former East Germany, two most atheist places in the Western world, the concept of sex as a spectrum isn't especially popular either. People can be somewhat socially conservative without believing in the bible.
Yes I know it's a spectrum, and all 'intelligent' people I know this (the spectrum is unevenly distributed with 2 peaks).
Of all the things in the world that people understand or misunderstand, why, to you, is this particular subject even an issue?
no. sex, biological sex, is not binary.
I know that not every single human fits.
That does nor stop it being a binary, or that binary being a major fault line
This is a natural biological system, not a logical system. Cases that do not fit do not disprove the rule
forcibly assigning those to one of the two modes is unscientific and based of a binary world view.
which is why some nations allow to put "diverse" as sex at birth, or do away with that at all.
There's not like 20% of humans with mammary glands and a scrotum, right? Or 10% with no reproductive organs. Or 15% with both sets.
The obvious flip side of 1 in 1500 is that 1499 out of 1500 are binary.
So there's not really a spectrum as most people would understand that word.
The spectrum of sex characteristics is a bimodal distribution with two peaks. and the vast majority of all humans fall close to one of the two peaks peaks. however, they indeed exist medically classified circumstances for bodily sexual expression that is not on one of the peaks but somewhere in between.
and the percentage of those not close to the peaks is heavily contested and varies between 1 in 15000 ( putting extremely high bars on "uh wen can't tell") to 17 in 1000 (counting for example a larger clit as a penis-y ambiguous thing)
bimodal distribution with distinct peaks and a low but non-zero density between the peaks.
Not really true. Some people maybe.
>Sex is binary
Sex is complicated. Traits cluster bimodally, but it would be reductive, scientifically inaccurate, to say it’s a simple binary.
>People with DSDs are female or male
That depends on how female and male are categorized. The line between in the trait cluster and outside of the trait cluster is arbitrary. So it depends where you draw that line.
So I don't see 1 in 1500 people being oppressed by the court ruling.
I don't know why you think this is a conservative lie. It is not.
All of the following are nearly possible today:
+ A man implanted with a womb giving birth.
+ A woman stealing genetic material and creating a baby which then the second parent must support - gender is optional here.
+ A woman wanting an abortion, instead having the fetus removed and placed in an artificial womb under the care of the father.
And one that I was working on:
+ Farm animals grown with their brains shut off, used as compute substrate for biological neural networks, while their biological functions are controlled remotely.
I’m sorry, you were working on what? Where does one learn more about this concept?
One does not.
One builds the tools to run the experiments to discover the rules.
The closest are FinalSpark and CorticalLabs, but they both are only using in vitro neurons as the computational substrate.
Neuralink et al. are working in vivo, but they are only doing output and don't have any plans to do input, let alone to actively disrupt normal neural activity and take control of bodily processes.
If you're very interested feel free to drop me a line.
Short term in vitro learning's been shown in the original CorticalLabs paper (20 min), but the sheer difficulty of keeping neurons alive, working, unstressed, fed and oxygenated in vitro while highly active for more than an hour at a time means that no one's been able to show how that short term learning transfers to long term memory.
Using an organism that already provides all the life support for the neurons means that you can have test runs that last hours to weeks with continuous stimulation.
Your tech is easily modifiable so it can do that since it's based on the Intan RHS chips. Happy to have a chat about it since you're one of the two companies that could potentially pull this off right now.
When a woman is born without a womb, the doctors should investigate and figure out why that is. Is something else missing? Could there be other issues? A diagnosis should be made.
No such investigation is necessary when a man is born without a womb.
I would like to reflect on the timing of this - the UK Supreme Court just ruled something about a woman is a “biological” definition - and I am willing to put a lot of money on many people on both sides of that contentious debate struggling with the idea that “someone born without a womb is a woman” and “hey we can transplant wombs now”
Thousands of scientists and medical practitioners have taken thousands of baby steps to get to this point. We should fund every single one of them - we never know where research will take us.