[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.