Transgender

[ysabetwordsmith]

UK Supreme Court says legal definition of ‘woman’ excludes trans women, in landmark ruling

The United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that the legal definition of “woman” excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality laws are applied.

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in equality legislation refers to “a biological woman and biological sex,” sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners but warnings it was a “worrying” development for transgender people.


Aside from the obvious abuse of transfolk, this also raises issues because biological sex is not binary. There's a whole handful of intersex conditions where outward appearance does not match chromosomes, hormones, etc. So exactly which part of "biological" do they mean, and what will they do when the parts point in different directions? Since they've just decided that a gender recognition certificate is irrelevant.

Comments

[fred_mouse]

So, so angry about this. And, from what I've read elsewhere (I haven't looked at your link yet) they went over the Scottish Parliament to do so and quash a ruling, which is such a slap in the face.

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

It's not like England thinks anyone else matters.

Re: Well ...

[fred_mouse]

yup

[(Anonymous)]

Scotland really needs to leave the Union and join the EU.

On the High Court Ruling, and the effects on Trans and Intersex people, especially the latter, could have damaging effects medically, like medications that suppress or support the presenting gender being less affordable/available.

And they called the era before "The Enlightenment" a dark age? That's not a dark age, this is a dark age...

To paraphrase Paul Hogan.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Scotland really needs to leave the Union and join the EU.<<

Not a bad idea, but a risky one to attempt.

>>On the High Court Ruling, and the effects on Trans and Intersex people, especially the latter, could have damaging effects medically, like medications that suppress or support the presenting gender being less affordable/available.<<

That's true. Just as one example, a person assigned male at birth will find it difficult or impossible to access such things as birth control pills or health screenings, even if they have internal female organs (which can happen).

>> And they called the era before "The Enlightenment" a dark age? That's not a dark age, this is a dark age... <<

It's still just the lead-in to a dark age.

[thewayne]

My wife had a dorm mate in grad school who was a full hermaphrodite, two complete sets of sex organs with the competing hormones thereof. (She did eventually get surgery which helped her tremendously.) How are you going to categorize her?

[labelleizzy]

I remember reading that intersex people occur naturally at about the same percentage of the human population as redheads do. If I think about all the redheads I've known, it's significant.

I have no idea what to do (yet) about governments that are continuing to try and legislate actual people out of existence.

So I'm just going to yell about it for awhile, and then see where I go from there. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[thewayne]

Screaming into the void is sometimes all we can do.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I remember reading that intersex people occur naturally at about the same percentage of the human population as redheads do. If I think about all the redheads I've known, it's significant.<<

The rate of redheads is variable, from a maximum of 1:10 in Ireland to one in hundreds or thousands in some other populations.

I'm not sure about the exact variability of intersex conditions, but I do know that 1) some are more common while others are rare, and 2) some cluster in certain populations. The Wikipedia entry gives a long list of conditions with percentages where known.

>> I have no idea what to do (yet) about governments that are continuing to try and legislate actual people out of existence.<<

* Protect and support intersex people you know, or other oppressed groups.

* Read material by and about them.

* Prompt for and sponsor material by and about them.

* Make your blog a safe space for them.

* Shame governments for abusing people.

* Network with other people who criticize government abuses and support victims of oppression.

Re: Thoughts

[see_also_friend]

Sometimes privileged people will refuse to engage with a discriminatory system as well - for example, straight couples who refused to marry before gay marriage was legalized.

Wow!

[ysabetwordsmith]

That version is really rare.

[see_also_friend]

The clearest explanations I ever got were :

1) "If they have a Y chromosome, they're a guy." I never got an explanation on how AIS [androgen insensitivity syndrome] fit into that. Or women pregnant with boys, since that is a form of naturally-occurring chimerism, which would include a Y chromosome.

2) "Well they should use their common sense." ...and I'd think that if common sense is the case, why do wee need a law?

I also observe that the people making these laws would *not* want to pay extra $ to make sure everyone who needs assistance in public has a same-gender attendant for restroom visits.

...and I think the one time I mentioned the pregnancy thing, the reply I got was akin to : "Stop being stupid, the law obviously wasn't designed for that!"

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> 1) "If they have a Y chromosome, they're a guy." I never got an explanation on how AIS [androgen insensitivity syndrome] fit into that. Or women pregnant with boys, since that is a form of naturally-occurring chimerism, which would include a Y chromosome. <<

There are three basic things people tend to mean by "biological" sex:

* chromosomes

* hormones

* sex organs

The problem is that things do not always agree.

Chromosomes can be XX or XY (the standard) but also other configurations.

Hormones are the body's chemical messengers. If the body does not have some of them, or has them but they are not processed in the usual manner, then the blueprint can turn out a body that does not match the chromosomes.

Sex parts usually derive from the chromosomes and hormones assembling a standard body. But not always. Sometimes the pattern misfires in various ways, large or small, some of which we understand and others we really don't. This is the part doctors usually glance at and guess a person's sex/gender. They almost never check the hormones or chromosomes, unless there is an issue so glaring that something needs to be done immediately (frex, one fatal-if-untreated defect is lack of a urinary exit).

>> 2) "Well they should use their common sense." ...and I'd think that if common sense is the case, why do wee need a law? <<

It just makes me want to show them photos of ambiguous genitals.

>> I also observe that the people making these laws would *not* want to pay extra $ to make sure everyone who needs assistance in public has a same-gender attendant for restroom visits.<<

Some people who need care don't want a same-gender attendant. What if you're gay? You might prefer someone who is sexually irrelevant to you. What if you were abused? You might want someone not of the same sex/gender as your abuser. And so on.


The one valid point about genderspace that nobody even bothered to raise is that, if people don't feel comfortable in it, they will leave. So for instance, if you have a rape survivors support group, and male victims of rape are allowed to attend, most or all of the women will leave and the group will close. If the women don't feel safe with transwomen -- whether that is a rational feeling or not -- then again, they will leave and it will close.

Sometimes this can be solved easily with separate offerings, as it can with bathrooms. But with support services, there isn't always enough demand to keep a group going just for the transfolk, or just for the male survivors, etc. So they wind up with nothing.

Re: Well ...

[see_also_friend]

>>The problem is that things do not always agree.<<

Yes.

I /did/ find that argument interesting, because it had a clear standard for what 'counted,' and it wasn't just "Quit being stupid, it's obvious!" Actually enforcing it would be a nightmare from both humanitarian and practical purposes, and I do still think it's /wrong/...

>>They almost never check the hormones or chromosomes, unless there is an issue so glaring that something needs to be done immediately (frex, one fatal-if-untreated defect is lack of a urinary exit).<<

So by the Y-chromosome definition, it is possible for someone to be using the so-called wrong bathroom without realizing it. AIS, for example, is commonly not diagnosed until mid-to-late teens, if I remember correctly.

>>It just makes me want to show them photos of ambiguous genitals.<<

That would be sexual harassment.

>>Some people who need care don't want a same-gender attendant. What if you're gay? You might prefer someone who is sexually irrelevant to you. What if you were abused? You might want someone not of the same sex/gender as your abuser. And so on.<<

Point.

Usually when I have that sort of discussion, it has usually been with someone I disagree with... and they'd probably be more opposed to taxes paying extra for same-gender workers than patient preferences.

>>So for instance, if you have a rape survivors support group, and male victims of rape are allowed to attend, most or all of the women will leave and the group will close.<<

Have an overarching program, but have separate groups for men, women, and other specialized needs as they come up.

Also, given the technology available, consider offering online groups as an option. People who do not feel safe in the same room as XYZ may be amenable to shared digital space - or they may not. YMMV.

...and don't pressure people for feeling uncomfortable. Forcing people to exist under high stress doesn't do any good.

>>But with support services, there isn't always enough demand to keep a group going just for the transfolk, or just for the male survivors, etc. So they wind up with nothing.<<

For comparatively rare/low-demand/whatever-proper-term needs such as this, you could also do online resources. Either set up an all-online group, or have a specialist group with resources that can be adopted by satellite groups or individuals.

So, for the example of male rape survivors :

1) The digitally-organized group can have an all-male program : mentors, content, hotlines staffed by male survivors, whatever they find useful.

2) They should have content for individuals. Stuff for survivors, and maybe also some stuff for family and loved ones of survivors. Pamphlets, downloads, reading list, whatever.

3) They should have an allyship program and resources, so that if a more standard SA-Support group want to expanded their services, or even if they just unexpectedly get a single male member in the regular group, they can download whatever resources and use them with whatever programs they are already running.

[cmcmck]

They also ignored intersex people (of which I am one) because we don't fit their cosy little notion of binary!

There's a petition against the judgement which anyone anywhere can sign:

https://www.change.org/search?q=Overturn%20the%20UK%27s%20New%20Legal%20Definition%20of%20a%20Woman

[fred_mouse]

signed and shared.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> They also ignored intersex people (of which I am one) because we don't fit their cosy little notion of binary! <<

That's going to cause immediate medical problems, since a lot of intersex conditions have associated health issues.

>> There's a petition against the judgement which anyone anywhere can sign: <<

Thanks for the link.