UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex • Hacker News Board

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#21

Post by dustedcodes » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 7:51 PM UTC

fzzzy wrote: post #17

dustedcodes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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 .

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#22

Post by taylodl » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 8:00 PM UTC

EA-3167 wrote: post #15

taylodl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#23

Post by EA-3167 » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 8:16 PM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #22

EA-3167 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#24

Post by beeforpork » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 8:33 PM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #22

EA-3167 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> 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.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#25

Post by fzzzy » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 9:23 PM UTC

dustedcodes wrote: post #21

fzzzy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 .

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

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#26

Post by EA-3167 » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 10:33 PM UTC

fzzzy wrote: post #25

dustedcodes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

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

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.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#27

Post by stubish » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 1:54 AM UTC

beeforpork wrote: post #10

mytailorisrich wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The clarification is important because there have been a lot of arguments and fear of being sued for exluding trans women from "women only" areas from changing rooms to sport and even gynecologists. My understanding, reading the various reactions in the article, is that now it is fully legally safe to deny trans women access to the "women changing room", or to "womens" categories in sport, or to lesbian meeting place…

Yes, I agree that that is a consequence. But before this judgement, the laws were ambiguous, which is arguable the worst that can happen with laws.

It certainly is arguable. The more unambiguous the law, the less room for common sense decisions. Now there is the situation where people who physically appear male but declared female at birth must use female facilities, by law. And cannot be excluded, per discrimination law. And possibly conflicts completely with religious persecution laws, depending on how religious leaders define girls and women when it comes to gender segregated facilities like hairdressers or swimming pools. And a judge no longer gets to make a common sense ruling based on who's wobbly bits were being flaunted in whom's face for what reason.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

#28

Post by aaaja » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:57 AM UTC

beeforpork wrote: post #24

taylodl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 wro…

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.