[taylodl]

Meanwhile, biologists and anthropologists recognize that human biological sex is complex and exists on a spectrum, rather than being strictly binary. This ruling is founded on legal definitions, not the full scope of biological diversity. Going forward we should strive to resolve the differences between legal and biological sex so we can make judgements that are more inclusive.

[aaaja]

> exists on a spectrum, rather than being strictly binary

Not really though, at least not for biologists, who have an understanding of sex that encompasses all sexually reproducing species, based on there being two gamete types of different sizes.

This is why it's described as a binary, because of the two distinct types of reproductive cell. By convention the larger type is the female gamete and the smaller type is the male.

Having these consistent definitions is how biologists can discover new sexually reproducing species and understand the specifics, like are individuals hermaphroditic (each individual produces or can produce both female and male gametes) or gonochoric (individuals with distinct and unchanging sexes), and if the latter, which are the females and which are the males.

[dustedcodes]

> biologists and anthropologists recognize that human biological sex is complex

Have you got any credible sources which support this statement? I have only seen papers which confirm that sex is binary and immutable.

[beeforpork]

Are you trolling?

Biological sex is not binary. There are (at least) three criteria to be considered:

(1) cromosomes. females are XX, males are XY. But other combinations exist: XXY, XXX, XXXY, etc. There is no universal agreement of how those combinations should be best matched to the binary system.

(2) phenotype. females have a vulva, a vagina, and ovaries, males have a scrotum, a penis, and testicles. But some people have no, or half, or a large, or small of one or another. Furthermore, the phenotype might not match with the chromosomes: one example is an XY chromosome type while the person has a vulva, vagina, and internal testicles. There is no universal agreement of how those people should best be classified to the binary system -- the best is probably to recognise that they are non-binary.

(3) hormone level. females have a typical level of hormons and males have different levels. But this is not universally clear-cut. This is one of the most frequent reasons for dispute at sport events when otherwise very obvious women have hormone levels that are 'too male'. Again, no universal agreement of what to do here: ignore the hormone levels in these cases? But why? Usually, they match. But not always.

There are also male outliers that have hormone levels that are higher than for males. These males might also be excluded from sports competitions for the same reason, despite being on the right side of the binary scale, but they are too far on that side. Again -- there is no agreement whether this is still the normal male category or maybe non-binary.

And this is just the biological sex. For gender and identification, there is more. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny how some governments define sex as binary by reducing it to biological sex or maybe assigned sex -- it is really like making a law that pi is 3.

But note that the judges here made it clear that it is not their place to make a judgement on this complex topics.

[aaaja]

This is an inaccurate narrative of sex in that it doesn't take into account other sexually reproducing species.

More specifically: not all species have an XY chromosome sex-determination system (see ZW or temperature-based systems), not all species have the same anatomy for sexual reproduction (consider egg-laying species), and other species have different sex hormones (for example insects have a hormonal system unique from mammals).

The biologist perspective of sex is to consider gametes (sex cells) as the basis. Two types, with one type (female) larger than the other (male). All other understanding relevant to the exact mechanism in each species is built upon this.

[dustedcodes]

Isn't what you described here just a variation of chromosomes? We know there are more than two combinations, but Sex is still determined binary via the existence or absence of the Y chromosome, no?

[taylodl]

Most people typically look at genitals to determine sex. However, as beeforpork pointed out, there are individuals with XY chromosomes who have a vulva, a vagina, and internal testicles. Based on physical appearance alone, which is often the basis for sex determination at birth or during annual physicals, they would be classified as female. Yet, their chromosomes tell a different story. This complexity suggests that it may be inappropriate to strictly categorize them as either male or female. This is what it means to be non-binary. Beeforpork did a good job of detailing other instances where biological markers of sex don't align with the so-called sex chromosomes.

[EA-3167]

You seem to be arguing for a more superficial definition of sex? I think that fits better with gender, which is a lot more flexible than biology. At the end of the day casual language isn't set up to draw distinctions between gender and sex, "Woman" or "Man" is generally taken to refer to both gender and sex. In reality of course that isn't necessarily the case, and in law it's important to strictly define terms.

So the court did just that, and defined (for the purposes of legislation) what "Man" and "Woman" refers to, i.e. sex not gender. A person with XY chromosomes, but some sort of developmental disorder that makes them appear feminine isn't some kind of massive puzzle from a biological point of view either, you'd just say "Male with AIS" for example. From a legal (in the UK now) point of view you'd say the same, and from a social point of view you'd say whatever that person identifies as.

People love pointing out that biology is complex, but for some reason bristle at the prospect of language that accurately expresses that complexity. And to be clear, if someone who is XY identifies as a woman... *Call them a woman!* It's rude and cruel to do otherwise, but from a legal standpoint it's unhelpful to play word games.

[taylodl]

No, I was arguing the presence or not of a Y chromosome is insufficient in determining sex. Besides which, very few people have ever had a chromosome test. There are women in this world who have no idea they have an XY chromosome, yet they've been female their entire life. Legally calling that person 'male' is an affront to their person, and I would argue the Law has no power to make such a claim.

[dustedcodes]

Ok what you both say makes sense but none of what you said so far negates the fact that strictly speaking sex is binary, defined by the existence of a Y chromosome and that this is also immutable. It’s completely possible that the externalities presented at birth may lead to a wrong sex assignment, but that is a separate issue of human error isn’t it?

[beeforpork]

No.

Why is it so important to you that sex/gender is binary? Maybe try to relax and be a little less judgemental. It really does not matter for you what other people's sex is.

Intuitively, for normal people on the street, and arguably for politicians trying to define that sex is binary, how you would read a person is their sex. So that is, I would say, the historic traditional way of determining sex: by look and intuition (called common sense, usually). That's also how sex is determined at birth. (Note that in some cases, nurses need help with that, because it's not intuitively clear...)

Because this intuitional method does not work well, other ways have been tried to find something more objective than having a quick look. We found the sex chromosomes. But they are not binary either, as mentioned above. Now, one way of making chromosomes forcibly binary is to take the check for a Y cromosome, as you say. But that's just one arbitrary simplification. It is not an universally agreed criterion, because it does not always match with other criteria, particularly looks/intuition nor hormones.

And even intuitively, I argue, you should know that sex is non-binary. There are people where you cannot easily read the sex. You have an immediate intuition most of the time, sure, but not always. And then, as mentioned, your intuition may contradict chromosomes and/or hormone level categorisation of that person.

Another example: typically, an XY chromosome person with female external genitals is most probably read as clearly female. But by chromosome judgement, as you suggest, they would be clearly XY male. And at birth, they are most probably be classified as female. But they do have testicals and high testosterone levels, which again is totally in line with the male chromosomes.

Sex is not binary. Really. The world is not that simple. I'd argue that instead of trying to force sex to be binary, we should just try to not care so much about sex and gender. Because why?

[fzzzy]

So you are saying that someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome should use the men's bathroom, even though they have fully female genetalia?

[vaidhy]

No.. you can have one set of chromosomes, but completely different hormonal influence.