What is a woman?

[monkers]

I used to watch some of his youtube stuff but I stopped when I came across his twitter account and noticed he retweets bigoted and racist nonsense from Reform and that twat Darren Grimes.

All true. He also has been known to rant strong opinions about cyclists without giving an honest account of the legal position.

There is no doubt that he is a barrister, but likewise there is no doubt that his is a right-wing reactionary. He has created a money generating platform for his views using a false narrative that pretends it has support in law.

 

[C R]

All true. He also has been known to rant strong opinions about cyclists without giving an honest account of the legal position.

There is no doubt that he is a barrister, but likewise there is no doubt that his is a right-wing reactionary. He has created a money generating platform for his views using a false narrative that pretends it has support in law.

Even his grasp of the law seems tenuous on occasion. I watch some of his videos after he commented on a cyclist video that had gone viral, and wasn't impressed

 

[AuroraSaab]

Clear explanation of the court case and background here, from ex Newsnight journalist Hannah Barnes.

https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/11/scottish-government-is-ignoring-womens-rights

 

[Bromptonaut]

Clear explanation of the court case and background here, from ex Newsnight journalist Hannah Barnes.

https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/11/scottish-government-is-ignoring-womens-rights

Clearly expressed but from a GC perspective.

 

[monkers]

Clear explanation of the court case and background here, from ex Newsnight journalist Hannah Barnes.

https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/11/scottish-government-is-ignoring-womens-rights

The Supreme Court will consider if the Scottish Ministers' interpretation of EA2010 is what parliament intended.

None of all advocates did well. Each of them having their own difficulties. There was disagreement between FWS and Sex Matters.

O'Neil was frankly ridiculous saying that the Supreme Court should base judgement on the need to confront the patriarchy, therefore asking the Justices to part with their role of impartiality to reach a favourable judgement.

Cooper inadvertently did a better job in places for Scottish Ministers than for Sex Matters. The guy from the Commission answered questions incorrectly. I wasn't surprised that the Justices were at times confused enough to seek clarification.

I think the Scottish Ministers missed a trick in not asking Victoria McCloud to act for them. I feel sure she could have answered the questions without falling into such difficulties.

The ruling of the Supreme Court must be based on a sensible interpretation of relative current law with regard to what parliament intended in 1975, 1995, 2004 and 2010.

My guess is after considering the law in detail that they will reach the conclusion that the lower courts reached the correct construction.

There may well be omissions and anomalies to be found. They may need to be rectified, and the Supreme Court may attempt those remedies.

However well-crafted the plaintiff's arguments may be, the primary purpose is for the Supreme Court to decide if the lower courts have erred in their consideration on points of law - I didn't see any presentation to argue that they had, just that neither FWS and Sex Matters like the law the way that is.

Neither Lady Haldane or Lady Dorian who heard the previous rounds are new or lightweights.

Time will tell.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And whatever the outcome, material reality won't change. We'll still all be our birth sex regardless of any legal fiction. There'll just be more confusion and muddle for other courts to sort out later.

 

[C R]

.... We'll still all be our birth sex regardless of any legal fiction ...

So intersex people don't exist?

 

[AuroraSaab]

What sex do you think people with dsd's are?

Nobody is between the sexes. Every mamal is either male or female. There are male disorders of sexual development and female disorders of sexual development. Just because a child is born with ambiguous genitalia or different congenital secondary characteristics due to genetic abnormalities, it does not make them the opposite sex or a mixture of both sexes.

It would be pretty heartless for example to tell someone with Turner syndrome they weren't a woman but were some kind of in between sex.

 

[monkers]

What sex do you think people with dsd's are?

Nobody is between the sexes. Every mamal is either male or female. There are male disorders of sexual development and female disorders of sexual development. Just because a child is born with ambiguous genitalia or different congenital secondary characteristics due to genetic abnormalities, it does not make them the opposite sex or a mixture of both sexes.

It would be pretty heartless for example to tell someone with Turner syndrome they weren't a woman but were some kind of in between sex.

Reproductive sex is a binary, but reproductive sex isn't the whole story. Even those of us without a DSD are not all fertile. It doesn't affect me personally if people are infertile. I'll show them compassion if they want kids and are infertile, not call them out and start bringing court cases to the Supreme Court to consider. Sex is complex, not the simple binary you pretend.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That dog's dinner of a graphic proves absolutely nothing. It suggests males with Klinefelter's dsd are somehow less male than males with 5-ard dsd. How can that be? Both are male. Male and born with different male dsds.

The 0.02% of people born with various dsds aren't different sexes, nor are they male-er or female-er than other men and women. It's insulting to suggest they are.

And of course none of this is relevant to those men who don't have a medical dsd condition, and who in fact are unequivocally just as male as any other man. Stop using medical conditions - some of which have serious consequences - to get these men into women's spaces.

 

[monkers]

That dog's dinner of a graphic proves absolutely nothing. It suggests males with Klinefelter's dsd are somehow less male than males with 5-ard dsd. How can that be? Both are male. Male and born with different male dsds.

The 0.02% of people born with various dsds aren't different sexes, nor are they male-er or female-er than other men and women. It's insulting to suggest they are.

And of course none of this is relevant to those men who don't have a medical dsd condition, and who in fact are unequivocally just as male as any other man. Stop using medical conditions - some of which have serious consequences - to get these men into women's spaces.

I'm not the one that raised medical conditions. I was replying to your post. Saying male of female are the only two states of sex are just wrong.
Sex is binary for reproduction, but not for internal or external genitals, secondary sex characteristics, gametes or chromosomes; hormone ratios vary.

You are presenting a false dichotomy.

Tell me is it penis envy or penis panic you suffer from?

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

Even [BlackBeltBarrister's] grasp of the law seems tenuous on occasion. I watch some of his videos after he commented on a cyclist video that had gone viral, and wasn't impressed

Interesting, thanks; I'll have to dig that up and make my own judgement (all the world's a courtroom and everyone's a juror). I'd not come across him before. As to the matter at hand, his presentation was of interest to me chiefly as an example of someone trying mightily not to offend, whilst laying out this case.

Worth quoting from the New Statesman link:

Watching proceedings felt at times like being in a strange parallel universe. Questions from the judges and answers from the legal teams were incomprehensible, such was the mess that both were getting into around language. There were sentences which began, “If you exclude a pregnant man…”; sex and gender were muddled; natal women and trans women were often confused; and a new concept of “certificated sex” was introduced. Lawyers representing the Scottish government seemingly had no idea how someone showed they had been “living in their acquired gender” for the purposes of gaining a GRC. Would a natal man with a GRC saying they were a woman, but who presented as a man, be discriminated against “as a woman”, one judge asked, if people perceived them to be a man? Crawford said she’d like to think about that question over lunch. It’s easy to laugh, but the outcome of this case is fundamental to the rights of women, and of those who are same-sex attracted.

Having only caught bits and pieces of the hearings live, I have started to make my way through the 9 hours of video (those links again). Best to gather one's own impressions from source material. The first LOL moment for me came at 20.40 in the first video, when Aidan O'Neill quoted someone in what I believe was Latin, then added "and in what might be thought to be a matter of an act of passive aggression, he doesn't give a translation of that." (Maybe you had to be there.)

Not everyone will appreciate the history lesson of women legally screwed over in case after historical case. It was a fitting prelude.

I hate to bring a relative into this, particularly a niece, but one of mine is lesbian and would like to be free to confine her romantic associations to other lesbians, rather than have to navigate "certificated" "women".

The whole left/right thing is kind of... what's the word for it? Binary. Fortunately I don't faint dead away when hearing shrieks of "right-wing reactionary" and lurid warnings of being recruited and controlled by the far right. It's the new McCarthyism donchaknow. Even if this were a right/left issue, how sad that the spectrum of allowable opinion shrinks daily, and frankly embarrassing for those who cling to tribal politics.

That said, I will admit to having always considered myself a card-carrying leftie. Then this happened...

(credit: evolutionary biologist Colin Wright)


View: https://youtu.be/KfY57Yl5tPk

 

[AndyRM]

So intersex people don't exist?

Yep. And they're just as valid as people who fit neatly into gender binaries. Dismissing them as simply "male" or "female" is, IMO, wrong.

 

[AndyRM]

Interesting, thanks; I'll have to dig that up and make my own judgement (all the world's a courtroom and everyone's a juror). I'd not come across him before. As to the matter at hand, his presentation was of interest to me chiefly as an example of someone trying mightily not to offend, whilst laying out this case.

Worth quoting from the New Statesman link:

Having only caught bits and pieces of the hearings live, I have started to make my way through the 9 hours of video (those links again). Best to gather one's own impressions from source material. The first LOL moment for me came at 20.40 in the first video, when Aidan O'Neill quoted someone in what I believe was Latin, then added "and in what might be thought to be a matter of an act of passive aggression, he doesn't give a translation of that." (Maybe you had to be there.)

Not everyone will appreciate the history lesson of women legally screwed over in case after historical case. It was a fitting prelude.

I hate to bring a relative into this, particularly a niece, but one of mine is lesbian and would like to be free to confine her romantic associations to other lesbians, rather than have to navigate "certificated" "women".

The whole left/right thing is kind of... what's the word for it? Binary. Fortunately I don't faint dead away when hearing shrieks of "right-wing reactionary" and lurid warnings of being recruited and controlled by the far right. It's the new McCarthyism donchaknow. Even if this were a right/left issue, how sad that the spectrum of allowable opinion shrinks daily, and frankly embarrassing for those who cling to tribal politics.

That said, I will admit to having always considered myself a card-carrying leftie. Then this happened...

(credit: evolutionary biologist Colin Wright)


View: https://youtu.be/KfY57Yl5tPk

You may have missed this on the gender megathread, but you're not allowed to have a neice. @monkers' is made up apparently.

 

[winjim]

Radical idea I know, but maybe let's try and create a society where people feel comfortable openly expressing and discussing their gender identity, then lesbians* can have a polite conversation with each other and be able to simply say no thank you, the way they would to any other person they're not interested in.

I also have a niece.

*and straight men. It's not just a lesbian issue.