[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.

[beeforpork]

> When it comes to the law though, word games are unhelpful and get in the way, clear definitions are required.

Yes, this is what the judges were tasked to clarify. And they clarified. The situation is better now, i.e., those laws are not ambiguous anymore (well, except for that 'what is biological sex' discussion...). It is quite an arbitrary clarification, but they clarified, and arguably, they could only do it wrong. They write themselves that they are not trying to define what sex or gender is. But they disambiguated existing laws, which by itself, is a good thing.

Obviously, this is not a good judgement for trans people, but the underlying problem is not with this judgement, but that the laws are not good. No definition of what sex or gender is will make those laws better. Judges cannot change that; legislation needs to change that. The judgement clarifies that the laws were made to protect cis women from cis men. The laws unfortunely do not protect trans women. And that's bad. Completely agreed.

The discussion here has drifted in the direction of how to or not to define biological sex -- and that's also not helpful for trans rights. But the topic is still interesting and no-one claimed to be solving problems, I think.

[aaaja]

The law does actually protect trans-identifying individuals via the "gender reassignment" characteristic. So for instance an employer can't disadvantage an employee for having that protected characteristic.

What the Supreme Court clarified the law doesn't do is grant them additional privileges, like access to spaces designated solely for the opposite sex.

[EA-3167]

This isn't Schrodinger's cat, a lack of observation doesn't make the chromosomes go away, and really focusing on intersex people when the topic is trans people feels like a bit of a shell game anyway. You are however entitled to your opinion, to present as you see fit, and I think you have the right to be treated according to how you present.

When it comes to the law though, word games are unhelpful and get in the way, clear definitions are required. In terms of respecting human dignity, these definitions change nothing; people inclined to respect trans people will still feel the same way, and bigots will hardly change either. You can still have laws and legal structures designed to protect people while recognizing the reality of their biology, because it's about GENDER identity, not BIOLOGICAL identity.

[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?

[dustedcodes]

Huh? Nobody made any statements about bathroom usage or such, nor has the UK ruling anything to do with bathroom access. We are discussing the definition of sex and how the court ruling came to the conclusion .

[fzzzy]

You are arguing the presence of a Y chromosome is what should determine whether someone's passport says "Male" or not, right?

[EA-3167]

To be clear, that's not what this ruling says, that would be a consequence of other laws that can be changed if there's political will. The ruling is just a narrow definition for legal purposes of what the words "Man" and "Woman" mean. If a law is passed allowing for gender identity to be on a passport, then you could have someone who was afab put "Male" on the passport if they're trans.

And if such a law isn't passed, or a law explicitly banning that is passed, then *that law* is the issue, not the definition of sex dictated by biology. Remember, sex and gender are not the same.