This is not actually that much of a sensation -- the judges have made it clear at the very beginning that it is not their place to define what is sex or gender. The only thing they do is clarify how the words "woman" and "man" are to be interpreted in existing laws that have been made to protect women (e.g., and usually, from men).
And the result is: it is the judgement that those laws are referring to the biological sex (which it itself is recognised as being subject to some debate, too, so the judgement refers to another common definition).
That's all. It is not a redefinition or anything. I cannot really understand the enthusiasm of one side or another. It just clarifies what those laws were meant to say, and I tend to agree that anything else would most likely be an unintended reinterpretation. The judges also make it clear that if law makers want more protection for other groups, e.g., trans people, they probably need to make more laws for that.
I also find that this is a very complex topic, because it was about the question whether in sex separated prisons, it is more important to protect trans women from cis men, or to protect cis women from imposter trans women cis men. I mean -- who knows a trivial solution to that? The judges clarified basically that the original law was probably just concerned about protecting cis women from cis men, because probably no-body thought about it. And for the sake of clarifying anything, they said that "woman" probably meant "biological woman". They were tasked to decide something, so they did.
And, well, at least that's I read into this... You can have a look for yourself, maybe, before taking one side.
Segregate by sex first and foremost, and then within each prison estate further separate prisoners by risk categories. It's what's done already for vulnerable inmates: ex-cops, gang informants, pedophiles, etc.
The reason that some penal systems started transferring males to women's prisons wasn't to protect them from other males - this was a justification invented afterwards - but because they decided to implement ideological beliefs that promoted gender identity over sex. Regardless of how much risk this exposes female prisoners to.
Thankfully this sort of policy is starting to be reversed, or has been already, almost everywhere it's been imposed.
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 places, etc.
Meanwhile, biologists and anthropologists recognize that human biological sex is complex and exists on a spectrum, rather than being strictly binary. This ruling is founded on legal definitions, not the full scope of biological diversity. Going forward we should strive to resolve the differences between legal and biological sex so we can make judgements that are more inclusive.
> exists on a spectrum, rather than being strictly binary
Not really though, at least not for biologists, who have an understanding of sex that encompasses all sexually reproducing species, based on there being two gamete types of different sizes.
This is why it's described as a binary, because of the two distinct types of reproductive cell. By convention the larger type is the female gamete and the smaller type is the male.
Having these consistent definitions is how biologists can discover new sexually reproducing species and understand the specifics, like are individuals hermaphroditic (each individual produces or can produce both female and male gametes) or gonochoric (individuals with distinct and unchanging sexes), and if the latter, which are the females and which are the males.
beeforpork|10 months ago
And the result is: it is the judgement that those laws are referring to the biological sex (which it itself is recognised as being subject to some debate, too, so the judgement refers to another common definition).
That's all. It is not a redefinition or anything. I cannot really understand the enthusiasm of one side or another. It just clarifies what those laws were meant to say, and I tend to agree that anything else would most likely be an unintended reinterpretation. The judges also make it clear that if law makers want more protection for other groups, e.g., trans people, they probably need to make more laws for that.
I also find that this is a very complex topic, because it was about the question whether in sex separated prisons, it is more important to protect trans women from cis men, or to protect cis women from imposter trans women cis men. I mean -- who knows a trivial solution to that? The judges clarified basically that the original law was probably just concerned about protecting cis women from cis men, because probably no-body thought about it. And for the sake of clarifying anything, they said that "woman" probably meant "biological woman". They were tasked to decide something, so they did.
And, well, at least that's I read into this... You can have a look for yourself, maybe, before taking one side.
aaaja|10 months ago
Segregate by sex first and foremost, and then within each prison estate further separate prisoners by risk categories. It's what's done already for vulnerable inmates: ex-cops, gang informants, pedophiles, etc.
The reason that some penal systems started transferring males to women's prisons wasn't to protect them from other males - this was a justification invented afterwards - but because they decided to implement ideological beliefs that promoted gender identity over sex. Regardless of how much risk this exposes female prisoners to.
Thankfully this sort of policy is starting to be reversed, or has been already, almost everywhere it's been imposed.
mytailorisrich|10 months ago
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 places, etc.
taylodl|10 months ago
aaaja|10 months ago
Not really though, at least not for biologists, who have an understanding of sex that encompasses all sexually reproducing species, based on there being two gamete types of different sizes.
This is why it's described as a binary, because of the two distinct types of reproductive cell. By convention the larger type is the female gamete and the smaller type is the male.
Having these consistent definitions is how biologists can discover new sexually reproducing species and understand the specifics, like are individuals hermaphroditic (each individual produces or can produce both female and male gametes) or gonochoric (individuals with distinct and unchanging sexes), and if the latter, which are the females and which are the males.
dustedcodes|10 months ago
Have you got any credible sources which support this statement? I have only seen papers which confirm that sex is binary and immutable.
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]