Woman and Sex, means biological sex.

[Deleted member 323070]

But such detailed examination of newborns is a very recent innovation.
Prior to the publication of such guidelines, various procedures were adopted depending on the whim of the birth attendant, or even no birth attendant.

Another very recent publication (2022) of guidelines for assigning the sex of newborns:

Ambiguous Genitalia Guidelines

PIER Guideline for the management of ambiguous genitalia

www.piernetwork.org

 

[Highway Man]

An interesting article.

Sex is not “assigned” at birth

Even I have been guilty of saying that “male” and “female” are the two categories of “sexes assigned at birth”, while at the same time maintaining that there are…

whyevolutionistrue.com

 

[MNW67]

The recent SC decision put paid to that freedom. The gender adopted does not allow transgender to use 'single sex' spaces. They have to use the space assigned to their 'recorded sex'.

I think the judgment was actually a lot narrower than that.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

An interesting article.

Sex is not “assigned” at birth

Even I have been guilty of saying that “male” and “female” are the two categories of “sexes assigned at birth”, while at the same time maintaining that there are…

whyevolutionistrue.com

Clearly he's an expert..... on the fruit fly.

A professor emeritus at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, he has published numerous papers on the theory of evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.[

Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But even his expertism recognises that sex is not binary.

Sex is determined at birth, usually based on phenotypic traits that are correlated with biological sex but don’t define biological sex (gamete size does that).

He accepts that usually there is a correlation of phenotypic traits with 'biological sex', but those traits do not define 'biological sex'.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I think the judgment was actually a lot narrower than that.

Give us your version, for consideration.

 

[MNW67]

Give us your version, for consideration.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I've already seen that discussion.
But you thought my brief conclusion of the SC decision was too narrow.

I think the judgment was actually a lot narrower than that.

I was hoping for a more explicit response explaining your opinion and understanding of the SC decision, and how it differed from that which I offered, not a reference to a previously presented TV discussion offering different perspectives of the SC decision.

What is your assumption of the SC decision and how does it differ from my assumption?

 

[Highway Man]

I've already seen that discussion.
But you thought my brief conclusion of the SC decision was too narrow.

I was hoping for a more explicit response explaining your opinion and understanding of the SC decision, and how it differed from that which I offered, not a reference to a previously presented TV discussion offering different perspectives of the SC decision.

What is your assumption of the SC decision and how does it differ from my assumption?

I prefer the answers that MNW67 gives to be honest. It is to the point and doesn't bore you to tears instead of reading through masses of useless drivel. It is actually quite refreshing.

 

[MNW67]

What is your assumption of the SC decision and how does it differ from my assumption?

It only applies to the small percentage of trans people with GRCs. Nothing has changed for the great majority without GRCs. Also, the ruling does not create an obligation to exclude:

Supreme Court ruling on trans women ‘misunderstood’ says former top judge

Lord Sumption has warned the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this week is being misinterpreted

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I prefer the answers that MNW67 gives to be honest. It is to the point and doesn't bore you to tears instead of reading through masses of useless drivel. It is actually quite refreshing.

It's called confirmation bias. That suggests a closed mind to alternative possibilities.
MNW67 appears to deny the possibility of intersex, despite arguing that DSD is now the adopted terminology, and it's natural for you to agree with that.

But it's your choice to align with whatever belief you prefer, even when there is no evidence to support your belief. and despite the evidence to support the contrary.
That is how religion works.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

It only applies to the small percentage of trans people with GRCs. Nothing has changed for the great majority without GRCs. Also, the ruling does not create an obligation to exclude:

Supreme Court ruling on trans women ‘misunderstood’ says former top judge

Lord Sumption has warned the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this week is being misinterpreted

www.independent.co.uk

Thanks for the explanation.
That is true to a certain extent, Previously non-holders of GRCs could be excluded from single sex spaces., although in practice they weren't, whereas holders of GRC could not be excluded.
Exclusion of transpeople can now be effected against GRC holders and non-holders, alike.

And the decision places no obligation on service providers to exclude transpeople from single sex spaces. The decision allows for it, but makes no obligation on enacting that exclusion.

Lord Sumption argued that while many have taken the ruling to mean that service providers are obliged to provide single-sex spaces based on biological sex, the ruling meant that excluding transgender people from single-sex spaces was allowed, and not a breach of the 2010 Equality Act.

So some specific cases that have been highlighted in the media, the ruling may have no effect. E'g the nurse that wanted a transperson excluded from the locker room may not be affected. If the 'changing area' was deemed to be sufficiently private, the storage of clothing and other personal effects may be sufficient in a mixed sex environment.

Similarly, if the government chooses not apply the decision to women's prisons, in connection with transwomen, they are not obliged to.
If they did not accommodate transwomen with cis women in the same 'cells', and there was sufficient privacy in showers, toilets, etc, the government could continue as current. The possession of a GRC makes no difference.

As explained by some butch lesbians, it opens up the probability of them being challenged when using single sex spaces.
In addition, it forces transmen to use female single sex spaces.

 

[Highway Man]

It's called confirmation bias. That suggests a closed mind to alternative possibilities.
MNW67 appears to deny the possibility of intersex, despite arguing that DSD is now the adopted terminology, and it's natural for you to agree with that.

But it's your choice to align with whatever belief you prefer, even when there is no evidence to support your belief. and despite the evidence to support the contrary.
That is how religion works.

The evidence is quite straight forward in 99.99% of the time. Male and female is the only two relvent sexes. My whole point is why should anyone make allowances and changes for such a small minute percentage of people who simply desire to be different to their assigned gender. I don't mind anyone wanting to do this but you cannot expect the rest of us to foot the bill to please them.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

The evidence is quite straight forward in 99.99% of the time.

Show us the source of your quoted figures.

Male and female is the only two relvent sexes.

So intersex people are not relevant?
Should we deny them out of existence?

My whole point is why should anyone make allowances and changes for such a small minute percentage of people who simply desire to be different to their assigned gender.

You refuse to respect minorities of all sorts?
Or just transgenders?

you cannot expect the rest of us to foot the bill to please them.

How are you footing the bill for respecting minorities?
Or is just transgender's minority's rights that you object to?

 

[Highway Man]

Show us the source of your quoted figures.


So intersex people are not relevant?
Should we deny them out of existence?


You refuse to respect minorities of all sorts?
Or just transgenders?


How are you footing the bill for respecting minorities?
Or is just transgender's minority's rights that you object to?

As I have said, I have no issues with trans people. I respect women to have their own safe places more.

 

[ericmark]

I know in South America, there is a tribe where the person can look like a woman until puberty, but are in fact men, so with that in mind, one can't really be sure of a child's sex. But the problem is, I would not feel happy for a person dressed like a woman going into the men's, even if they are male.

Female toilets have a cubical, so it does not really matter. It is the male toilets where the problem lies, as we have urinals. But it means we will need men's, women's, and others toilets. And in the main we do, they are called disabled toilets, which means the real disabled are going to have a problem.