Non-binary: What do you understand it to mean?

[swansonj]

Surely it is a matter of scientific fact.

Sex is genetically determined:
For mammals;
XX = Female
XY = Male
XO or XXY or other cobination = DSD

None of these can be changed in an individual - sex is immutable.

Not recognizing that and distinguishing it from the psycho-social construct that is gender is what fails to move humanity forward very far.

Once again, I want to ask a genuine question. Presumably what you correctly outline as the current understanding of "sex" is, in terms of the history of humanity, quite a recent change? Presumably, for most of human history, sex was defined not by chromosomes but by body appearance and function? When did that switch take place? (Obviously not till after the discovery of genes but how much after?)

 

[Archie_tect]

Whether a person identifies as male or female depends on how they feel about themselves and only they can know that. I imagine that most people rely on physical cues to make immediate and lasting decisions about others based on their own experiences. As we all know you can't make someone like you but you can influence them by how you respond over time. Sadly first impressions count.

 

[newfhouse]

Some people believe the Earth is flat. Science says they are wrong.

Some people believe the Earth is 6000 years old and was made in 7 days. Science says they are wrong.

Some people believe it is possible to change sex. Science says the are wrong.

No matter the nature of a belief, no matter how strongly or sincerely it is held, belief does not trump science.

So what? What you say is undeniably true but still those beliefs persist, and in many cases drive attitudes, behaviour and the way we live our lives.

 

[PK99]

So what? What you say is undeniably true but still those beliefs persist, and in many cases drive attitudes, behaviour and the way we live our lives.

The so what? Is that schools teach the science not the belief. Those who hold the belief do not have a right to impose behaviours on people who don't.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So what? What you say is undeniably true but still those beliefs persist, and in many cases drive attitudes, behaviour and the way we live our lives.

Perhaps they do drive how we behave and live our lives. But should the self-beliefs that some people have be allowed to dictate laws that affect others? We accommodate many people's beliefs about the world, especially religious ones, and we give them legal protection so that they can hold those beliefs without being discriminated against. As we should.

What we don't do is allow them to have those beliefs enshrined in law. Why should belief about gender identity, for which there is no scientific basis, be allowed to influence legislation which affects others? This is what transgender activists demand.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Once again, I want to ask a genuine question. Presumably what you correctly outline as the current understanding of "sex" is, in terms of the history of humanity, quite a recent change? Presumably, for most of human history, sex was defined not by chromosomes but by body appearance and function? When did that switch take place? (Obviously not till after the discovery of genes but how much after?)

The fact that chromosomes dictate sex and secondary sexual characteristics is a recent discovery but surely the knowledge that male and female bodies have a different reproductive function has been known for millions of years, in all mammals, long before science was even a thing.

In certain animals the sex of the foetus is affected by things like temperature in the womb, as opposed to just chromosomes. They still only emerge as either male or female though. Sex in mammals is binary, it's not a spectrum. How could it be? Our bodies are set up to produce either sperm or eggs. There's no other option.

 

[newfhouse]

Those who hold the belief do not have a right to impose behaviours on people who don't.

Imposition is a bit strong. Accommodation would be better, wouldn’t it?

What we don't do is allow them to have those beliefs enshrined in law.

I agree we shouldn’t, although our legal system remains littered with examples of just that. The law should accommodate a right to be wrong about things when no harm is caused.

What matters is how people are treated. Yes, there are areas of potential conflict - toilet arrangements being an apparent focus for some - but safeguarding aside there must surely be better ways to resolve those than by purely legal means.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We do accommodate beliefs about gender identity though. We accommodate it in law by allowing people to change their passport for example, and gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

Most of the time your sex doesn't matter, but there are times when it does. In those situations I think harm is caused to women and girls when gender identity is allowed to trump material sex.

The reason women's right to single sex spaces, and women's rights in general, have to be enshrined in law is because without legal status none of those things would have come to pass in the first place. Those rights were not given freely; they were fought for. And without legal status being maintained today, these rights will be lost.

It does matter how people are treated, but it sounds like it's women who are the only ones being asked to make significant concessions.

 

[theclaud]

We do accommodate beliefs about gender identity though. We accommodate it in law by allowing people to change their passport for example, and gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

Can I ask frankly - would you roll those two protections back?

 

[swansonj]

The fact that chromosomes dictate sex and secondary sexual characteristics is a recent discovery but surely the knowledge that male and female bodies have a different reproductive function has been known for millions of years, in all mammals, long before science was even a thing.

In certain animals the sex of the foetus is affected by things like temperature in the womb, as opposed to just chromosomes. They still only emerge as either male or female though. Sex in mammals is binary, it's not a spectrum. How could it be? Our bodies are set up to produce either sperm or eggs. There's no other option.

But (in my mind at least though I'm happy to listen to explanations as to why I am wrong) there are alternative ways of defining sex, which most of the time coincide, but don't always coincide. As a minimum, there's chromosomes, there's body appearance, and there's reproductive function. Of those, chromosomes are the most clearly binary and the most clearly unchangeable, and that seems to have become the standard definition. Given that that was not always the case, I'm just mildly curious as to how and when the choice to switch to that definition came about.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Can I ask frankly - would you roll those two protections back?

No, I wouldn't. Trans folk have every right to be protected from discrimination because they are trans. The Equality Act does this. What UK law also does is acknowledge that where it's a proportionate response, men can be excluded from female spaces. So when transwomen are excluded from female spaces, it's because they are male not because they are trans.

I think you can make an argument that a passport or birth certificate is a statement of fact and therefore shouldn't be changed, but personally, I think that should apply to birth certificates but not necessarily to passports. If someone has legally changed their gender it's possible to accommodate that on a passport without it affecting much. (They would still be liable to exclusion under the exemptions of the Equality Act, obviously).

Would you agree with Stonewall that all single sex exemptions in the Equality Act should be done away with?

 

[AuroraSaab]

But (in my mind at least though I'm happy to listen to explanations as to why I am wrong) there are alternative ways of defining sex, which most of the time coincide, but don't always coincide. As a minimum, there's chromosomes, there's body appearance, and there's reproductive function. Of those, chromosomes are the most clearly binary and the most clearly unchangeable, and that seems to have become the standard definition. Given that that was not always the case, I'm just mildly curious as to how and when the choice to switch to that definition came about.

I'd say reproductive function has always been the way sex is defined. Chromosomes just give us more information about how biological traits are passed on. There are chromosomal conditions that affect reproductive function and sexual development, but they are rare and never result in a third sex.

Reproductive function is also binary, surely, in mammals anyway. There's impregnating and there's gestating; big gametes and small ones.

I'm not sure body appearance has much to do with it. Breasts etc are secondary sexual characteristics. 'I have breasts so I must be a woman' has never been how sex is defined in science. People come in all shapes and sizes, but they only come in two sexes.

 

[theclaud]

Would you agree with Stonewall that all single sex exemptions in the Equality Act should be done away with?

No I wouldn't. The Equality Act is a symbolically important but flawed piece of legislation - the exemptions are crucial. The Gender Recognition Act means that there are two ways to be a woman (or a man) for legal purposes - being born female (allowing for the variation @swansonj recognises in how that is defined) and achieving recognition through the Act. The second is what you might call a legal fiction. It matters that there are criteria for this, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious that medical gatekeeping is the appropriate one. This, if I'm not mistaken, is how the latest explosion of this row began.

 

[Unkraut]

If you'd stop making things up about trans people I'd maybe engage on the subject.

Well I would love to repent of this, but you are not making it terribly easy!

 

[FishFright]

Well I would love to repent of this, but you are not making it terribly easy!

It's quite easy , stop making things up to suit your position.

If you don't know about something ask questions instead of picking a place to stand and making shoot up