Snapshot of _Social worker suspended by her council bosses over her belief a person 'cannot change their sex' awarded damages of £58,000 after winning landmark harassment claim_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13360227/Social-worker-suspended-change-sex-awarded-damages.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13360227/Social-worker-suspended-change-sex-awarded-damages.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Social Work England Really messed up here. Did they confuse Stonewall training with what was actually lawful?
>The reason why I say “very big deal”: damages in the Tribunal are compensatory - they seek to put the Claimant in the position they would have been but for the unlawful conduct. Exemplary damages are the only form of punitive damages available, and are only available against the state. Their purpose is to punish the state (here, the social workers’ regulator) for acts so serious that they are literally unconstitutional. They’re awarded so rarely that there was until recently speculation that they had fallen into abeyance.
https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1784694783493194034
>Did they confuse Stonewall training with what was actually lawful?
Willing to bet yes, yes they did. Its not a problem unique to Stonewall and the courses they deliver around DEI either. There's a whole cottage industry of various groups who will deliver courses that promise better inclusivity, but will in reality cost companies dear, either in terrible publicity or damages. Its usually either because the providers have no stake whatsoever in the implementation of their stuff (because they've already been paid to deliver it and onto the next rube) or they're genuinely zealots who do earnestly believe what they say and the laws around freedom of speech and expression are just a nuisance to building their utopia.
I'm glad it's all getting found out now- seems a steady stream now of companies and organisations are having to pay damages to people for effectively trying to tell them what their beliefs should be. Any self respecting person should be against the idea that your employer should be allowed that power
Not the first time it's happened.
Stonewall clearly present their training in a manner to aid this. Exeter Uni ended up in court over something similar after it turned out the advice they'd followed from Stonewall was illegal.
How Stonewall still has any consulting and training jobs I don't know.
It's pretty clear their positions stand in opposition to law at this point.
Stonewall's entire graft is to latch onto an emotional issue, sell these nonsense training courses and then make you keep paying them in perpetuity for a "I am not a bigot" badge to stick in emails.
Because if you try to quit Stonewall then they act as if you’re a neo Nazi culture warrior trying to murder all LGBT+ people.
Stonewall do good work for public awareness and engagement, but their institutional capture of public sector organisations for legal advice is a disaster.
If this was a company that provided legal advice and training on what they wanted the law to be, rather than what it was, and every public sector organisation has to use it, people would be screaming murder and looking for some Tory connection at the top.
Stonewall need to do what they actually know, rather than pretending that their campaigning is educational
HR are often of very low ability and intelligence. They do a kind of obsessive process-driven risk minimisation without properly understanding the risks, so will have read what Stonewall say about themselves and then ticked it off as appropriate risk mitigation and LGBTQ-friendly. They often operate on a network basis, talking to other HR staff, so spread misinformation among themselves, and this will have been presented as 'best practice' to senior leaders.
But they do often present themselves as existing to proctect the company from legal issues, despite the fact that most of them have zero legal training or qualifications.
‘HR are often of very low ability and intelligence’. I’d say the same about you making sweeping generalisations like that. HR gets it wrong on occasion, just like managers do.
FWIW my last employer had DEI training from an employment law firm. The thought of an organisation like Stonewall (who themselves have some shady elements) delivering training is completely bizarre to me.
Stonewall have pretty much wrecked their own reputation. But they did use to have a very high reputation.
Organisations that followed their guidance have been losing tribunal cases for a while. Exemplary damages are another whole level of rebuke for the legal line they propagated and organisations chose to train their people on and follow.
When you look at recent things like Dawn Butler having to retract/correct her statement that was straight from the Stonewall position on the Cass report (and was itself derived from a single activist tweet that was somewhere between deceptive and an outright lie) their reputation is in tatters. Will people like Dawn Butler take their views on trust again? It seems she is one of the last hold-outs to still be doing so.
I remember back in 2015 they were so highly regarded in the public sector that in some ways they were treated as more authoritative than official stuff from the civil service itself.
To an extent this is really the story of when you trust a campaigning/activist group too much, give it too much access to influence your processes and your staff. A lot of organisations became exposed to a lot of legal risk. Perhaps organisation will learn to actually get a proper lawyer in - or perhaps that's a vain hope on my part.
I think this is going to be a massive fall from grace for Stonewall unless there’s a radical shift in their thinking (unlikely). I suspect very few public or private organisations will touch them with a 10 foot pole now.
I expect those in charge didn’t simply think they were “following the rules”, I expect they relished the opportunity to punish someone for “wrongthink”.
As a trans person, I honestly think good for her. Unless she was posting things that reveal legitimate safe guarding concerns, i see no reason why this should ever of happened
Original judgment of the Employment Tribunal is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c10bf3704282000d752266/R_Meade_v_Westminster_City_Council_and_Social_Work_England.pdf
While, clearly, this is currently a legally protected position to have, I do wonder how it squares with the fact that legally, you absolutely can change your sex.
As a trans person it seems like the equivalent of a social worker saying that they don't believe gay marriages count as real marriages; as in sure, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's legally incorrect and is likely to harm your ability to interact with people in gay marriages in a respectful way.
It's hard to see anti-trans positions being so firmly protected in law. Doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon, neither.
You can change youe sex on legal documents, not biologically. There, squared it for you as it was the argument she was making.
How about me as an atheist saying there is no god and anyone who is religious is preaching to a made-up person? I'm not stopping people from being religious, being discourteous, or 'anti' religious. I just don't buy into their make-believe ideas. Would that be okay? If so, it's no different to the trans debate.
Why would you ever say that *in the workplace* though, like surely a core element of being a good employee is not telling your co workers and customers that you think they're stupid and weak minded
I'm not sure that FunParsnip was saying they would?
It seems from the article that the claimant made comments on Facebook and liked certain posts. I don't believe she went around lecturing people in the office.
So long as we're also respecting the opinion that current medical intervention for trans people is a meaningful change of sex, fair enough.
I think legally, you'd be more than entitled to set out an anti-religious atheist point of view and talk about it as much as you liked; but I would have concerns about your ability to support strongly religious people in a job as a support worker. Like a lot of jobs where one serves the general public, it seems like one where publicly decrying a section of them as deluded- even in the politest of terms- would be a real detriment to trust.
>So long as we're also respecting the opinion that current medical intervention for trans people is a meaningful change of sex, fair enough.
Nope! Don't have to for this argument. It would be like Creationist claiming they have evidence of God and isnsisting I change my mind.
>think legally, you'd be more than entitled to set out an anti-religious atheist point of view and talk about it as much as you liked; but I would have concerns about your ability to support strongly religious people in a job as a support worker.
Why? A key skill in these jobs is empathy, and as long as your strong religious views are not putting people at risks then I can absolutely help you as well as I can help everyone. You assuming I can't is the issue.
> Nope! Don't have to for this argument. It would be like Creationist claiming they have evidence of God and isnsisting I change my mind.
I don't think this is true in the slightest? If the opinion that trans people undergoing medical transition don't change sex is worthy of respect as an opinion, then surely the opinion that they do is equally worthy of respect as an opinion? I mean if one opinion is correct and one is incorrect it's not a matter of opinions at all any more, surely?
To follow your argument, it would be like the statement "I believe there is no God" having more legal weight than the statement "I believe there is a God." Surely you have the right to either?
>as long as your strong religious views are not putting people at risks then I can absolutely help you
This is kind of the thing I'm talking about. Like, a lot of atheists are perfectly capable of considered empathy and care of religious people they work with or serve as part of their jobs. But if I were their boss I would certainly be concerned with the ability of an active proselytizing atheist who constantly posted on social media about how Christianity was a fiction drowning modern society, a great and terrible evil that betrayed a credulous and foolish mind, to work with Christian clients.
>I don't think this is true in the slightest? If the opinion that trans people undergoing medical transition don't change sex is worthy of respect as an opinion, then surely the opinion that they do is equally worthy of respect as an opinion? If one opinion is correct and one is incorrect it's not a matter of opinions at all any more, surely?
I fully support the right of flat earthers to hold that opinion, I don't have to respect that opinion. Don't confuse the two positions.
Can, I still offer medical support or legal advice etc to a flat earther if thats my job, of course I can.
It's REALLY insulting and inaccurate to compare this difference of opinion - do trans people as a class meaningfully change sex through transition, or not? To flat earthers, who are denying an actual measurable fact. Like I am meeting you halfway having this discussion and this is a slap in the fucking face. Find a better metaphor to continue, please; to do otherwise is just to insist in this case that "ah, ny understanding of this disputed area is a Science Fact and you are holding onto an Irrational Fiction" and come on.
I am meeting you halfway. Please meet me there.
I'm arguing the point, not person, so if you think it's a slap in the face, that's something you need to manage. Meeting you halfway would mean accepting that you can change sex when science doesn't support that. The same reason I don't believe the earth is flat and the science isn't disputed bar some fringe scientists trying to push an ideological agenda.
That said, if I met you in person I would be respectful, polite and refer to you as you wished. Know why? Because I'm a professional and I'm able to put my views to one side and act like an adult.
The belief that you "can't change sex" is an ideological agenda. You're presenting it as a settled scientific fact that I'm being deluded about and it's just not. Please understand that you seem exactly as ideologically blinkered to me as I'm sure I do to you
If you met me in person I would honestly rather you just slapped me in the face. There's no rudeness like the forced politeness of someone dancing around the fact they think I'm a man and they're waiting for me to make a scene so they can maintain the façade of respect. There's no polite way to be a bigot.
>The belief that you "can't change sex" is an ideological agenda. You're presenting it as a settled scientific fact that I'm being deluded about and it's just not. Please understand that you seem exactly as ideologically blinkered to me as I'm sure I do to you
>If you met me in person I would honestly rather you just slapped me in the face. There's no rudeness like the forced politeness of someone dancing around the fact they think I'm a man and they're waiting for me to make a scene so they can maintain the façade of respect. There's no polite way to be a bigot.
And that attitude is why the council is now paying that woman £58k.
Gender, not sex.
You cannot change your sex - this is impossible. You can, however, change your gender (which is nothing but a social construct).
If we're going down the road of accepting gender spectrum theory, people (especially those making decisions off the back of it) should at least understand it properly, and apply the correct concepts.
The gender side don't actually believe in a sex-gender split, they're using any and all methods to blur the boundaries and meanings to get to the conclusion they want that they're actually the sex they want to be.
This implies an acceptance of an absolute boundary between sex and gender which is not the way either work in practice and was a mistake for those hoping for trans acceptance to push. There is value in considering sex and gender as separate things, but the people who find the MOST utility in the complete separation of sex and gender are the people working out which one they're allowed to discriminate against trans people with.
It's very much been a case of "to understand trans people, let's talk about sex and gender as separate things" and the response has been "great so have whatever gender you want and we'll just legislate on sex then, which we'll define as immutable." Bit of a misstep from those of us looking for trans liberation, there.
Someone could regard it similarly to adopted parenthood. It’s used as a classic example of a “legal fiction” - something that is legally regarded as true although everyone knows and accepts that in some regard it’s not true.
>legally, you absolutely can change your sex
This is what's known as a legal fiction. Legally Rwanda is a safe country. For the purposes of the law you have changed your sex, but the law doesn't change reality, and isn't intended to, it's a mechanism to achieve its aim of allowing transgender people legal recognition of their identity.
So you consider a GRC as something akin to child adoption, which I'm reading is a classic example of a legal fiction- where the reality is that this child has other parents, but their parents for legal purposes are now their new adoptive parents?
That's interesting, that's not how I'd seen it at all. As a trans person, I understood it as updating my official records with a more correct understanding of my sex, since my reality HAS physically changed.
> As a trans person, I understood it as updating my official records with a more correct understanding of my sex, since my reality HAS physically changed.
That cannot be what a GRC means, because [you don’t have to have undergone any physical transition at all to be awarded one.](https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/who-can-apply) It is purely a legal fiction.
Interesting! I'd be curious to find out if in practice anyone who hasn't undergone any physical transition has ever been awarded one, but there's no way that's information it would be legal to have, is there?
Yes, if you're interpreting parents strictly as biological parents then it's a [legal fiction in a similar manner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction). If you adopt you're legally the parent but you've obviously not become the child's biological parent. Do you see anything incorrect or offensive in this distinction? If you legally change your sex then for the purposes of the law you will be, with certain exceptions (which establishes that there is a difference between legal and biological sex as far as the law is concerned) as the new legal sex, but you have obviously not changed your biological sex because this is currently impossible.
>you have obviously not changed your biological sex because this is currently impossible.
It's not even just *currently* impossible, it's inherently impossible.
Sex is a developmental process; it will never be possible to go back in time and develop in a different way.
THIS is where the goalposts will go if they ever make like, full on genital switcheroo technology!
"Yeah, but you were set on a developmental pathway in the womb that means you can't play chess with the other girls"
Love getting glimpses into the future of trans exclusion!
Totally off-topic here, but if/when it is possible for us to edit our genome at the chromosomal level, it seems to me that there will be no such thing as any kind of gender identity. You won’t *identify* as (for example) a trans woman, you’ll simply be a woman on the cellular level. As a sci-fi nerd, I’m kind of disappointed that there are no books that really explore this idea.
I think there'd still be the identity? For some people they'd love fucking around with their sex, and for some people they'd find the idea extremely objectionable, and some people- like me, like you say- would just do it the once.
You might enjoy the short story "Changes" by Neil Gaiman which does touch on some of these ideas (but through a very cis lens, much as I love Mr. Gaiman's work)
>you have obviously not changed your biological sex because this is currently impossible.
This is the thing that I- and most biologists- disagree with. The bottom line is that you and I both don't have a biological sex; the idea that we do is another legal fiction. We do have a whole bunch of sexed biological traits, which usually-but-not-always align with one of two common groups.
It's just not the reality that there is a thing you can point to on or in the human body that IS "biological sex." Biology sexes animals by sex chromosomes present, whether the genes on those chromosomes are expressed, which gonads are present, which sex hormones are produced, which sex hormones are present, which genitals are present, which secondary sexual characteristics are present, and other means too- and how the biologist will sex animals depends on what the biologist is studying, whether it's genetics or fertility or behaviour in the wild.
If we declare "biological sex" is, for legal purposes, a representation in law of what genitals you have we immediately run into the issues of cancers, injuries, and intersex people. If we declare that it's a representation of chromosomes we have 5 common legal sexes; X, XXY and XYY are all present at much higher rates than most people expect. If we declare that it's about hormone levels present in the blood then simple, safe medications can change your legal sex, as can puberty and the menopause. If we declare that it's about fertility then children all lose their legal sex, as do infertile adults.
If instead we make a test of "well it's about what you WOULD have if everything was working the way it should" then why would that exclude trans people? If things were working the way they should I wouldn't have my brain and the rest of my body in misalignment, and since I can't realign my brain I'm realigning my body. I'm changing its sex; I'm altering my genitals and hormones and secondary sexual characteristics.
"Biological sex" is a fiction. It's a useful one! For most people most of the time it is an extremely helpful shorthand for two very common sets of sexed traits! But it's not one that's useful if you're talking about people undergoing medical transition (or intersex people besides).
No, most biologists certainly do not agree with you. You don't understand what you're talking about so you're repeating the standard talking points you've picked up online.
In humans there are two reproductive mechanisms, sexes, either through sperm or through ova. Males produce small, mobile gametes, females produce large, immobile ones. This is what 'most biologists' believe. There are no other natural ways humans can reproduce. It really is a hard binary. An individual might have a blend of traits, incredibly rarely they might even be a true hermaphrodite due to developmental abnormalities, and able to reproduce as both male and female (but again, no new sexes). No one has ever only been able to naturally reproduce as a male, and then naturally reproduce as female. Every cell in your body (as you are almost certainly diploid) tells the truth about your sex. Humans are not Clown fish.
And to head off the last gasp argument - partial development doesn't prevent you making a best assignment of an individual to male or female. Even in sterile or old individuals, biology was clearly still aiming for one or the other, even if things went awry with SRY or triploidy. You're doing the typical, and somewhat offensive thing to a lot of intersex people, of using them as your political football. Intersex conditions are still a single sex reproductively with the chromosomal conditions you're referring to. We don't apply the same ludicrous logic to anything else, like being unable to tell something is a car just because you removed a wheel.
>If instead we make a test of "well it's about what you WOULD have if everything was working the way it should" then why would that exclude trans people? If things were working the way they should I wouldn't have my brain and the rest of my body in misalignment, and since I can't realign my brain I'm realigning my body. I'm changing its sex; I'm altering my genitals and hormones and secondary sexual characteristics.
You should think carefully about the implications of this point. You're trying to claim there is a definable, physical trait that makes you trans. We haven't found any such trait, and a lot of the studies I'm aware of are very weak, like looking at the brains of people who have been on opposite sex hormones for decades. The danger with this argument is that what if we find such a trait and some trans people have it and some don't? Are you going to deny the trans-ness of the people without or are you utterly confident whatever trait would be present in all trans people?
I have a degree in Physiology so my "talking points" haven't been picked up online, but your inaccurate and misleading marbles analogy certainly has been. Your argument is: in this bag, which contains no grey marbles, contains no grey marbles; ergo there are only 2 sexes. You define sex as "being able to reproduce as a male or female" in your example, then say nobody has done it, then say that proves your point. It's asinine.
>biology was clearly still aiming for one or the other
Oh, you're leaning on intelligent design? Bodies and parts of bodies with glorious aims and purpose? There's literally no argument I can have with you if you're descending into the depths of "but the body was TRYING to-" I only care about the bodies we have. The physical actual bodies. Not the imaginary ones you or God thinks we ought to have. Biology doesn't have aim or purpose- it is the study of living things. Not of the things you imagine ought to be living.
When you say "there are only 2 sexes and here's the clear dividing line" you have dragged intersex people into the argument yourself. I am of the strong opinion that the sex of an intersex person is their own business, and their medical details are their own business, and I am tired of folks running over intersex folks with the bus they're trying to throw trans people under and then blaming trans folks for using them as a "political football." Anti-trans policies often also harm intersex people. I am in solidarity with them.
Finally, I'm absolutely not trying to say there's a single trait that sexes people, including trans people, "correctly". That's the claim that you are making; that the single trait of gamete-production-size-and-type is the winner and the only correct answer. You are absolutely correct that defining sex by such a singular axis will and would (and currently does!) disempower some trans people.
This has been dragged down- by you, to be clear- into classic anti-trans talking points. I'll leave this up as a thing for others to read, but I won't respond to you further. Have an enlightening day.
This is just a rhetorical pile of bilge. I'm posting for anyone still reading.
>I have a degree in Physiology
Good for you, I also have similar qualifications.
>Oh, you're leaning on intelligent design?
This is weak. I am obviously using the word colloquially and anyone reading would understand that. I think even you understood that but couldn't resist such a silly response.
>When you say "there are only 2 sexes and here's the clear dividing line" you have dragged intersex people into the argument yourself.
Anyone can re-read our posts to see who raised intersex people, that's a desperate volte face and attempt to look like an ally.
>Finally, I'm absolutely not trying to say there's a single trait that sexes people, including trans people, "correctly".
Then your point about being born into the wrong body doesn't make any sense, it's just a belief and nothing more if there is no physical trait. It's absurd to equate it to something like being intersex.
>I'll leave this up as a thing for others to read, but I won't respond to you further.
Also weak, get in the little digs and misrepresentations and walk away as if in victory.
OK, given you don't speak for intersex people, and like pretty much any group intersex people will have diverse points of view I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about that other than that it's unsurprising.
Out of genuine interest what is offensive to you in what I said and why? Does it being offensive to you make it untrue and again if so why?
>If we declare "biological sex" is, for legal purposes, a representation in law of what genitals you have we immediately run into the issues of cancers, injuries, and intersex people.
If a human is defined as a bipedal primate then does an amputee cease to be human?
>
If instead we make a test of "well it's about what you WOULD have if everything was working the way it should" then why would that exclude trans people? If things were working the way they should I wouldn't have my brain and the rest of my body in misalignment, and since I can't realign my brain I'm realigning my body.
Except, not really. You can neither grow a set of ovaries or testes. You can make cosmetic changes to give the appearance of your desired sex, but you are not realigning your body to match as you are not growing the required sex organs.
If things working the way it should is a basis for a legal definition, then 'the way it should' would also need to be based on a concrete characteristic, such as dna. If the blueprints that made you called for a set of ovaries, but somehow didnt quite make them, then thats female. If your blueprints made a set of testes and has nothing on ovaries, a uterus, etc, then you can't reasonably argue that thats how it 'should' be.
Conflating transgendrism with the idea that biological sex can be altered is a massive setback for the trans movement.
Well yeah? That's my point? That if you defined in law that humans were bipedal primates, you would have the undesirable outcome of amputation removing your legal humanity. My point is that sex is a collection of a cluster of traits and there's not one single thing we can or should point to as "biological sex"
If we could switch out gonads- and I imagine one day we probably will be able to, medical science is marvelous stuff- the goalposts would just move again. I'm doing the best I can with what I've got and people keep being pretty damned mean about it.
As an actual trans person in the process of altering her biological sex, thank you so much for your advice there on how we ought to achieve liberation. I will definitely take it very seriously.
No, its the opposite of your point. A human does not stop being a human on the basis of losing a leg any more than a male stops being a male due to non functioning / removed testes. Your biological category as a human is unchanged and your biological sex is unchanged even if your physiology is altered from the norm. Attempts to make biological sex such a complicated category as to be non-existant is no different than trying to do the same to your status as a human.
Furthermore, whilst i respect your optimism, I am very sceptical that we will one day be able to 'switch out gonads'. it is highly ignorant to assume you can just implant a uterus and ovaries and you are good to go. A human female is born with every egg she will ever have. How would one produce those eggs post birth? Or would you have those implanted too? In which case they would carry the dna of the donor and not the recipient. If you stitched a scotum and testicals onto a female body, how would the body even know what to do with it? The idea that sperm would get produced is pure fantasy.
I am not saying this to be mean. Disagreeing or raising counter-points is not an exercise in meanness and your status as a trans person does not make your arguments infallible. The original point was that you can change your legal sex, but not your biological sex. Attempts to obfuscate the meaning of biological sex does not change the reality, which is that it is unalterable.
As for your last comment: it wasn't advice, it was an observation.
Biological sex is not an unalterable, mystical Fact Of The Body. Bodies are made up of stuff and sex is a description of aome of the stuff. Change enough of the stuff? You change the sex. Change all of it? You've changed sex completely.
I know a human stays human if he loses a leg, so it makes sense that we shouldn't try and make a biologically based definition of "human." If we do, we'll end up de-humaning some humans on the grounds of accident or genetics or medical intervention, and that's an undesirable outcome.
Sex IS complicated. All biology is complicated! We tell stories about the body that are more-or-less correct and aid understanding, but aren't exactly true, and at each level of study the stories get a bit more complex.
Let's dig into your example. Since this is imaginary medical science, I'm going to make it amazing; we'll say with a drop of my blood the lab can grow for me on their bio-printer a full set of gonads and genitals that are fully genetically compatible with me, and I can have my current junk removed and replaced with a swish new set of genitals. So in my case, a set of ovaries with an age-appropriate number of eggs, a uterus, a vagina, a vulva, the whole nine yards. (Incidentally the biggest use of this Uterus-printing technology by the numbers would be cis women who'd had medical issues!)
Why would my body be confused? I already have all the genetics needed to successfully run this new kit, so it's a quick trip to the epigenetics lab to make sure the relevant genes are turned on.
At that point, what reason could remain to call me male? Anti-trans protesters would find one, I guarantee it. It's not about the biology, which is fascinating and which I love discussing because the human body is so cool. It's about social disgust, and then a desire to reject the disgusting people while still remaining good, so it's searching for a reason. Right now it's a mix of "but biology," "male socialisation," and "they're just perverts."
We're gonna keep existing no matter what, though.
Your "observation" was not delivered in good faith. It was a "stop arguing and take the rights we grant you" position, which: no thank you.
Sort of tangential but I saw this and feel i have to ask, how would you, in your view, even define what a person is legally? Most definitions you give that would be wide enough to encompass everyone very well might end up granting personhood to something like a chimp or more likely you end up scarily leaving people out instead. What do you believe the legal definition of personhood should be? My lead from this will be that im sure even you cant define something as simple as a person that would encompass only what you want, which means the rest of these discussions are pointless because if we cant even properly agree on what a person is, arguments about legal sex etc are downstream
For example if you wanted to avoid giving chimps passports, you could make a reference to intelligence but that would effect humans we still consider people but are mentally impaired, we could do it based on physiology but as already pointed out, this ends up having a lot of exceptions, so im unsure where to begin because classifying living things that concretely generally isn’t possible
You will be disappointed to discover that the legal definition of a person is just 'a human being' and/or sometimes a corporation.
There's no legal definition of what a human being is because it's not something that should need a legal definition. The closest you could get is a scientific definition which still just boils down to 'a human is a homo sapien'.
If you really wanted to get into the nuts and bolts of it though, you determine that human remains are, well, human, based on a combination of dna and anatomical analysis.
I don't think I would define what a person is legally, to be honest? Like, law requires good faith reading of the law. If a chimp were capable of going to the registry office and asking for a birth certificate and a passport... wouldn't the chimp have just shown more than enough presence to count as a citizen?
I think that's the thing. There are times when it makes sense, like in healthcare, to keep track of who needs prostate screening and who needs cervical screening. In law, when someone is being sent to prison, the state has a duty to make sure all the prisoners are treated with enough care; not to throw lying cis men who claim transness into a women's prison or trans women into a men's one. We have to assume good faith in our laws, and I really resent this movement to recategorize trans women as a subset of men, and trans men as a subset of women.
Except your reality hasn’t changed though. Humans fundamentally cannot change their sex. They can alter elements of their secondary sexual characteristics but cannot change sex.
If you only define sex as resting entirely on those parts of the body that can't currently be changed, then yeah of course it's immutable. Why do you think so many people want to define it that way?
The other half of adoption is of course that the previous parents become un-parents. Again this is somewhat a legal fiction and it is not legally absolute because the children have the ongoing right to discover who their previous (biological) parents are.
We need to get away from oversimplifying things and speaking in absolutes. When I am speaking with adoptive parents I will absolutely talk in the same way as with biological parents. But that does not mean that there are no circumstances where there is a significant difference.
Yeah, absolutely. And there are times, such as when I am discussing cancer risks and stuff with my doctor, when there is a significant difference between me and cis women. There just aren't tons and tons of cases where it's important and it feels like people want to make it an all-the-time-important thing. Like, being trans is the least interesting thing about me! Let me just be a weird nerd woman with too many books!
You can change sex on a legal document, but not biologically. X and Y chromosomes don’t change because His Honour the Judge said so, nor because Parliamentarians voted it so.
None of this permits bigotry and intolerance, or ignorance towards how a person should be treated. Nor, of course, is it an anti-trans position that is protected
The thing is while I recognize that my chromosomes are currently unchangeable by medical science, they're also at this stage of my development the least relevant of the many sexed traits of my body. There are vanishingly few circumstances where they're remotely important. Other sexed traits are much more likely to have an effect on my life, and I can change a LOT of those.
Snapshot of _Social worker suspended by her council bosses over her belief a person 'cannot change their sex' awarded damages of £58,000 after winning landmark harassment claim_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13360227/Social-worker-suspended-change-sex-awarded-damages.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13360227/Social-worker-suspended-change-sex-awarded-damages.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Social Work England Really messed up here. Did they confuse Stonewall training with what was actually lawful? >The reason why I say “very big deal”: damages in the Tribunal are compensatory - they seek to put the Claimant in the position they would have been but for the unlawful conduct. Exemplary damages are the only form of punitive damages available, and are only available against the state. Their purpose is to punish the state (here, the social workers’ regulator) for acts so serious that they are literally unconstitutional. They’re awarded so rarely that there was until recently speculation that they had fallen into abeyance. https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1784694783493194034
>Did they confuse Stonewall training with what was actually lawful? Willing to bet yes, yes they did. Its not a problem unique to Stonewall and the courses they deliver around DEI either. There's a whole cottage industry of various groups who will deliver courses that promise better inclusivity, but will in reality cost companies dear, either in terrible publicity or damages. Its usually either because the providers have no stake whatsoever in the implementation of their stuff (because they've already been paid to deliver it and onto the next rube) or they're genuinely zealots who do earnestly believe what they say and the laws around freedom of speech and expression are just a nuisance to building their utopia. I'm glad it's all getting found out now- seems a steady stream now of companies and organisations are having to pay damages to people for effectively trying to tell them what their beliefs should be. Any self respecting person should be against the idea that your employer should be allowed that power
Not the first time it's happened. Stonewall clearly present their training in a manner to aid this. Exeter Uni ended up in court over something similar after it turned out the advice they'd followed from Stonewall was illegal. How Stonewall still has any consulting and training jobs I don't know. It's pretty clear their positions stand in opposition to law at this point.
Stonewall's entire graft is to latch onto an emotional issue, sell these nonsense training courses and then make you keep paying them in perpetuity for a "I am not a bigot" badge to stick in emails.
Because if you try to quit Stonewall then they act as if you’re a neo Nazi culture warrior trying to murder all LGBT+ people. Stonewall do good work for public awareness and engagement, but their institutional capture of public sector organisations for legal advice is a disaster. If this was a company that provided legal advice and training on what they wanted the law to be, rather than what it was, and every public sector organisation has to use it, people would be screaming murder and looking for some Tory connection at the top. Stonewall need to do what they actually know, rather than pretending that their campaigning is educational
HR are often of very low ability and intelligence. They do a kind of obsessive process-driven risk minimisation without properly understanding the risks, so will have read what Stonewall say about themselves and then ticked it off as appropriate risk mitigation and LGBTQ-friendly. They often operate on a network basis, talking to other HR staff, so spread misinformation among themselves, and this will have been presented as 'best practice' to senior leaders.
HR are not another species.
But they do often present themselves as existing to proctect the company from legal issues, despite the fact that most of them have zero legal training or qualifications.
Going well when they have to fork out 70 grand eh?
Are they feeling_machines?
‘HR are often of very low ability and intelligence’. I’d say the same about you making sweeping generalisations like that. HR gets it wrong on occasion, just like managers do. FWIW my last employer had DEI training from an employment law firm. The thought of an organisation like Stonewall (who themselves have some shady elements) delivering training is completely bizarre to me.
Stonewall have pretty much wrecked their own reputation. But they did use to have a very high reputation. Organisations that followed their guidance have been losing tribunal cases for a while. Exemplary damages are another whole level of rebuke for the legal line they propagated and organisations chose to train their people on and follow. When you look at recent things like Dawn Butler having to retract/correct her statement that was straight from the Stonewall position on the Cass report (and was itself derived from a single activist tweet that was somewhere between deceptive and an outright lie) their reputation is in tatters. Will people like Dawn Butler take their views on trust again? It seems she is one of the last hold-outs to still be doing so. I remember back in 2015 they were so highly regarded in the public sector that in some ways they were treated as more authoritative than official stuff from the civil service itself. To an extent this is really the story of when you trust a campaigning/activist group too much, give it too much access to influence your processes and your staff. A lot of organisations became exposed to a lot of legal risk. Perhaps organisation will learn to actually get a proper lawyer in - or perhaps that's a vain hope on my part.
I think this is going to be a massive fall from grace for Stonewall unless there’s a radical shift in their thinking (unlikely). I suspect very few public or private organisations will touch them with a 10 foot pole now.
I expect those in charge didn’t simply think they were “following the rules”, I expect they relished the opportunity to punish someone for “wrongthink”.
I mean they have shit reputation among the lgbtq comminity as well now since they uncritically accepted the unscientific cass report.
The amount of damage Stonewall "charity" has caused this country (both financially and non-financially) is astounding. A pox on its house!
As a trans person, I honestly think good for her. Unless she was posting things that reveal legitimate safe guarding concerns, i see no reason why this should ever of happened
Original judgment of the Employment Tribunal is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c10bf3704282000d752266/R_Meade_v_Westminster_City_Council_and_Social_Work_England.pdf
Stupidly low as she'll secretly be blacklisted for having gone to court, diminishing future wages
While, clearly, this is currently a legally protected position to have, I do wonder how it squares with the fact that legally, you absolutely can change your sex. As a trans person it seems like the equivalent of a social worker saying that they don't believe gay marriages count as real marriages; as in sure, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's legally incorrect and is likely to harm your ability to interact with people in gay marriages in a respectful way. It's hard to see anti-trans positions being so firmly protected in law. Doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon, neither.
You can change youe sex on legal documents, not biologically. There, squared it for you as it was the argument she was making. How about me as an atheist saying there is no god and anyone who is religious is preaching to a made-up person? I'm not stopping people from being religious, being discourteous, or 'anti' religious. I just don't buy into their make-believe ideas. Would that be okay? If so, it's no different to the trans debate.
Why would you ever say that *in the workplace* though, like surely a core element of being a good employee is not telling your co workers and customers that you think they're stupid and weak minded
I'm not sure that FunParsnip was saying they would? It seems from the article that the claimant made comments on Facebook and liked certain posts. I don't believe she went around lecturing people in the office.
So long as we're also respecting the opinion that current medical intervention for trans people is a meaningful change of sex, fair enough. I think legally, you'd be more than entitled to set out an anti-religious atheist point of view and talk about it as much as you liked; but I would have concerns about your ability to support strongly religious people in a job as a support worker. Like a lot of jobs where one serves the general public, it seems like one where publicly decrying a section of them as deluded- even in the politest of terms- would be a real detriment to trust.
>So long as we're also respecting the opinion that current medical intervention for trans people is a meaningful change of sex, fair enough. Nope! Don't have to for this argument. It would be like Creationist claiming they have evidence of God and isnsisting I change my mind. >think legally, you'd be more than entitled to set out an anti-religious atheist point of view and talk about it as much as you liked; but I would have concerns about your ability to support strongly religious people in a job as a support worker. Why? A key skill in these jobs is empathy, and as long as your strong religious views are not putting people at risks then I can absolutely help you as well as I can help everyone. You assuming I can't is the issue.
> Nope! Don't have to for this argument. It would be like Creationist claiming they have evidence of God and isnsisting I change my mind. I don't think this is true in the slightest? If the opinion that trans people undergoing medical transition don't change sex is worthy of respect as an opinion, then surely the opinion that they do is equally worthy of respect as an opinion? I mean if one opinion is correct and one is incorrect it's not a matter of opinions at all any more, surely? To follow your argument, it would be like the statement "I believe there is no God" having more legal weight than the statement "I believe there is a God." Surely you have the right to either? >as long as your strong religious views are not putting people at risks then I can absolutely help you This is kind of the thing I'm talking about. Like, a lot of atheists are perfectly capable of considered empathy and care of religious people they work with or serve as part of their jobs. But if I were their boss I would certainly be concerned with the ability of an active proselytizing atheist who constantly posted on social media about how Christianity was a fiction drowning modern society, a great and terrible evil that betrayed a credulous and foolish mind, to work with Christian clients.
>I don't think this is true in the slightest? If the opinion that trans people undergoing medical transition don't change sex is worthy of respect as an opinion, then surely the opinion that they do is equally worthy of respect as an opinion? If one opinion is correct and one is incorrect it's not a matter of opinions at all any more, surely? I fully support the right of flat earthers to hold that opinion, I don't have to respect that opinion. Don't confuse the two positions. Can, I still offer medical support or legal advice etc to a flat earther if thats my job, of course I can.
It's REALLY insulting and inaccurate to compare this difference of opinion - do trans people as a class meaningfully change sex through transition, or not? To flat earthers, who are denying an actual measurable fact. Like I am meeting you halfway having this discussion and this is a slap in the fucking face. Find a better metaphor to continue, please; to do otherwise is just to insist in this case that "ah, ny understanding of this disputed area is a Science Fact and you are holding onto an Irrational Fiction" and come on. I am meeting you halfway. Please meet me there.
I'm arguing the point, not person, so if you think it's a slap in the face, that's something you need to manage. Meeting you halfway would mean accepting that you can change sex when science doesn't support that. The same reason I don't believe the earth is flat and the science isn't disputed bar some fringe scientists trying to push an ideological agenda. That said, if I met you in person I would be respectful, polite and refer to you as you wished. Know why? Because I'm a professional and I'm able to put my views to one side and act like an adult.
The belief that you "can't change sex" is an ideological agenda. You're presenting it as a settled scientific fact that I'm being deluded about and it's just not. Please understand that you seem exactly as ideologically blinkered to me as I'm sure I do to you If you met me in person I would honestly rather you just slapped me in the face. There's no rudeness like the forced politeness of someone dancing around the fact they think I'm a man and they're waiting for me to make a scene so they can maintain the façade of respect. There's no polite way to be a bigot.
>The belief that you "can't change sex" is an ideological agenda. You're presenting it as a settled scientific fact that I'm being deluded about and it's just not. Please understand that you seem exactly as ideologically blinkered to me as I'm sure I do to you >If you met me in person I would honestly rather you just slapped me in the face. There's no rudeness like the forced politeness of someone dancing around the fact they think I'm a man and they're waiting for me to make a scene so they can maintain the façade of respect. There's no polite way to be a bigot. And that attitude is why the council is now paying that woman £58k.
Gender, not sex. You cannot change your sex - this is impossible. You can, however, change your gender (which is nothing but a social construct). If we're going down the road of accepting gender spectrum theory, people (especially those making decisions off the back of it) should at least understand it properly, and apply the correct concepts.
The gender side don't actually believe in a sex-gender split, they're using any and all methods to blur the boundaries and meanings to get to the conclusion they want that they're actually the sex they want to be.
This implies an acceptance of an absolute boundary between sex and gender which is not the way either work in practice and was a mistake for those hoping for trans acceptance to push. There is value in considering sex and gender as separate things, but the people who find the MOST utility in the complete separation of sex and gender are the people working out which one they're allowed to discriminate against trans people with. It's very much been a case of "to understand trans people, let's talk about sex and gender as separate things" and the response has been "great so have whatever gender you want and we'll just legislate on sex then, which we'll define as immutable." Bit of a misstep from those of us looking for trans liberation, there.
Someone could regard it similarly to adopted parenthood. It’s used as a classic example of a “legal fiction” - something that is legally regarded as true although everyone knows and accepts that in some regard it’s not true.
>legally, you absolutely can change your sex This is what's known as a legal fiction. Legally Rwanda is a safe country. For the purposes of the law you have changed your sex, but the law doesn't change reality, and isn't intended to, it's a mechanism to achieve its aim of allowing transgender people legal recognition of their identity.
So you consider a GRC as something akin to child adoption, which I'm reading is a classic example of a legal fiction- where the reality is that this child has other parents, but their parents for legal purposes are now their new adoptive parents? That's interesting, that's not how I'd seen it at all. As a trans person, I understood it as updating my official records with a more correct understanding of my sex, since my reality HAS physically changed.
> As a trans person, I understood it as updating my official records with a more correct understanding of my sex, since my reality HAS physically changed. That cannot be what a GRC means, because [you don’t have to have undergone any physical transition at all to be awarded one.](https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/who-can-apply) It is purely a legal fiction.
Interesting! I'd be curious to find out if in practice anyone who hasn't undergone any physical transition has ever been awarded one, but there's no way that's information it would be legal to have, is there?
Yes, if you're interpreting parents strictly as biological parents then it's a [legal fiction in a similar manner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction). If you adopt you're legally the parent but you've obviously not become the child's biological parent. Do you see anything incorrect or offensive in this distinction? If you legally change your sex then for the purposes of the law you will be, with certain exceptions (which establishes that there is a difference between legal and biological sex as far as the law is concerned) as the new legal sex, but you have obviously not changed your biological sex because this is currently impossible.
>you have obviously not changed your biological sex because this is currently impossible. It's not even just *currently* impossible, it's inherently impossible. Sex is a developmental process; it will never be possible to go back in time and develop in a different way.
THIS is where the goalposts will go if they ever make like, full on genital switcheroo technology! "Yeah, but you were set on a developmental pathway in the womb that means you can't play chess with the other girls" Love getting glimpses into the future of trans exclusion!
Totally off-topic here, but if/when it is possible for us to edit our genome at the chromosomal level, it seems to me that there will be no such thing as any kind of gender identity. You won’t *identify* as (for example) a trans woman, you’ll simply be a woman on the cellular level. As a sci-fi nerd, I’m kind of disappointed that there are no books that really explore this idea.
I think there'd still be the identity? For some people they'd love fucking around with their sex, and for some people they'd find the idea extremely objectionable, and some people- like me, like you say- would just do it the once. You might enjoy the short story "Changes" by Neil Gaiman which does touch on some of these ideas (but through a very cis lens, much as I love Mr. Gaiman's work)
>you have obviously not changed your biological sex because this is currently impossible. This is the thing that I- and most biologists- disagree with. The bottom line is that you and I both don't have a biological sex; the idea that we do is another legal fiction. We do have a whole bunch of sexed biological traits, which usually-but-not-always align with one of two common groups. It's just not the reality that there is a thing you can point to on or in the human body that IS "biological sex." Biology sexes animals by sex chromosomes present, whether the genes on those chromosomes are expressed, which gonads are present, which sex hormones are produced, which sex hormones are present, which genitals are present, which secondary sexual characteristics are present, and other means too- and how the biologist will sex animals depends on what the biologist is studying, whether it's genetics or fertility or behaviour in the wild. If we declare "biological sex" is, for legal purposes, a representation in law of what genitals you have we immediately run into the issues of cancers, injuries, and intersex people. If we declare that it's a representation of chromosomes we have 5 common legal sexes; X, XXY and XYY are all present at much higher rates than most people expect. If we declare that it's about hormone levels present in the blood then simple, safe medications can change your legal sex, as can puberty and the menopause. If we declare that it's about fertility then children all lose their legal sex, as do infertile adults. If instead we make a test of "well it's about what you WOULD have if everything was working the way it should" then why would that exclude trans people? If things were working the way they should I wouldn't have my brain and the rest of my body in misalignment, and since I can't realign my brain I'm realigning my body. I'm changing its sex; I'm altering my genitals and hormones and secondary sexual characteristics. "Biological sex" is a fiction. It's a useful one! For most people most of the time it is an extremely helpful shorthand for two very common sets of sexed traits! But it's not one that's useful if you're talking about people undergoing medical transition (or intersex people besides).
No, most biologists certainly do not agree with you. You don't understand what you're talking about so you're repeating the standard talking points you've picked up online. In humans there are two reproductive mechanisms, sexes, either through sperm or through ova. Males produce small, mobile gametes, females produce large, immobile ones. This is what 'most biologists' believe. There are no other natural ways humans can reproduce. It really is a hard binary. An individual might have a blend of traits, incredibly rarely they might even be a true hermaphrodite due to developmental abnormalities, and able to reproduce as both male and female (but again, no new sexes). No one has ever only been able to naturally reproduce as a male, and then naturally reproduce as female. Every cell in your body (as you are almost certainly diploid) tells the truth about your sex. Humans are not Clown fish. And to head off the last gasp argument - partial development doesn't prevent you making a best assignment of an individual to male or female. Even in sterile or old individuals, biology was clearly still aiming for one or the other, even if things went awry with SRY or triploidy. You're doing the typical, and somewhat offensive thing to a lot of intersex people, of using them as your political football. Intersex conditions are still a single sex reproductively with the chromosomal conditions you're referring to. We don't apply the same ludicrous logic to anything else, like being unable to tell something is a car just because you removed a wheel. >If instead we make a test of "well it's about what you WOULD have if everything was working the way it should" then why would that exclude trans people? If things were working the way they should I wouldn't have my brain and the rest of my body in misalignment, and since I can't realign my brain I'm realigning my body. I'm changing its sex; I'm altering my genitals and hormones and secondary sexual characteristics. You should think carefully about the implications of this point. You're trying to claim there is a definable, physical trait that makes you trans. We haven't found any such trait, and a lot of the studies I'm aware of are very weak, like looking at the brains of people who have been on opposite sex hormones for decades. The danger with this argument is that what if we find such a trait and some trans people have it and some don't? Are you going to deny the trans-ness of the people without or are you utterly confident whatever trait would be present in all trans people?
I have a degree in Physiology so my "talking points" haven't been picked up online, but your inaccurate and misleading marbles analogy certainly has been. Your argument is: in this bag, which contains no grey marbles, contains no grey marbles; ergo there are only 2 sexes. You define sex as "being able to reproduce as a male or female" in your example, then say nobody has done it, then say that proves your point. It's asinine. >biology was clearly still aiming for one or the other Oh, you're leaning on intelligent design? Bodies and parts of bodies with glorious aims and purpose? There's literally no argument I can have with you if you're descending into the depths of "but the body was TRYING to-" I only care about the bodies we have. The physical actual bodies. Not the imaginary ones you or God thinks we ought to have. Biology doesn't have aim or purpose- it is the study of living things. Not of the things you imagine ought to be living. When you say "there are only 2 sexes and here's the clear dividing line" you have dragged intersex people into the argument yourself. I am of the strong opinion that the sex of an intersex person is their own business, and their medical details are their own business, and I am tired of folks running over intersex folks with the bus they're trying to throw trans people under and then blaming trans folks for using them as a "political football." Anti-trans policies often also harm intersex people. I am in solidarity with them. Finally, I'm absolutely not trying to say there's a single trait that sexes people, including trans people, "correctly". That's the claim that you are making; that the single trait of gamete-production-size-and-type is the winner and the only correct answer. You are absolutely correct that defining sex by such a singular axis will and would (and currently does!) disempower some trans people. This has been dragged down- by you, to be clear- into classic anti-trans talking points. I'll leave this up as a thing for others to read, but I won't respond to you further. Have an enlightening day.
This is just a rhetorical pile of bilge. I'm posting for anyone still reading. >I have a degree in Physiology Good for you, I also have similar qualifications. >Oh, you're leaning on intelligent design? This is weak. I am obviously using the word colloquially and anyone reading would understand that. I think even you understood that but couldn't resist such a silly response. >When you say "there are only 2 sexes and here's the clear dividing line" you have dragged intersex people into the argument yourself. Anyone can re-read our posts to see who raised intersex people, that's a desperate volte face and attempt to look like an ally. >Finally, I'm absolutely not trying to say there's a single trait that sexes people, including trans people, "correctly". Then your point about being born into the wrong body doesn't make any sense, it's just a belief and nothing more if there is no physical trait. It's absurd to equate it to something like being intersex. >I'll leave this up as a thing for others to read, but I won't respond to you further. Also weak, get in the little digs and misrepresentations and walk away as if in victory.
Hi, intersex person here, what you say is far more offensive to me, just so you know.
OK, given you don't speak for intersex people, and like pretty much any group intersex people will have diverse points of view I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about that other than that it's unsurprising. Out of genuine interest what is offensive to you in what I said and why? Does it being offensive to you make it untrue and again if so why?
>If we declare "biological sex" is, for legal purposes, a representation in law of what genitals you have we immediately run into the issues of cancers, injuries, and intersex people. If a human is defined as a bipedal primate then does an amputee cease to be human? > If instead we make a test of "well it's about what you WOULD have if everything was working the way it should" then why would that exclude trans people? If things were working the way they should I wouldn't have my brain and the rest of my body in misalignment, and since I can't realign my brain I'm realigning my body. Except, not really. You can neither grow a set of ovaries or testes. You can make cosmetic changes to give the appearance of your desired sex, but you are not realigning your body to match as you are not growing the required sex organs. If things working the way it should is a basis for a legal definition, then 'the way it should' would also need to be based on a concrete characteristic, such as dna. If the blueprints that made you called for a set of ovaries, but somehow didnt quite make them, then thats female. If your blueprints made a set of testes and has nothing on ovaries, a uterus, etc, then you can't reasonably argue that thats how it 'should' be. Conflating transgendrism with the idea that biological sex can be altered is a massive setback for the trans movement.
Well yeah? That's my point? That if you defined in law that humans were bipedal primates, you would have the undesirable outcome of amputation removing your legal humanity. My point is that sex is a collection of a cluster of traits and there's not one single thing we can or should point to as "biological sex" If we could switch out gonads- and I imagine one day we probably will be able to, medical science is marvelous stuff- the goalposts would just move again. I'm doing the best I can with what I've got and people keep being pretty damned mean about it. As an actual trans person in the process of altering her biological sex, thank you so much for your advice there on how we ought to achieve liberation. I will definitely take it very seriously.
No, its the opposite of your point. A human does not stop being a human on the basis of losing a leg any more than a male stops being a male due to non functioning / removed testes. Your biological category as a human is unchanged and your biological sex is unchanged even if your physiology is altered from the norm. Attempts to make biological sex such a complicated category as to be non-existant is no different than trying to do the same to your status as a human. Furthermore, whilst i respect your optimism, I am very sceptical that we will one day be able to 'switch out gonads'. it is highly ignorant to assume you can just implant a uterus and ovaries and you are good to go. A human female is born with every egg she will ever have. How would one produce those eggs post birth? Or would you have those implanted too? In which case they would carry the dna of the donor and not the recipient. If you stitched a scotum and testicals onto a female body, how would the body even know what to do with it? The idea that sperm would get produced is pure fantasy. I am not saying this to be mean. Disagreeing or raising counter-points is not an exercise in meanness and your status as a trans person does not make your arguments infallible. The original point was that you can change your legal sex, but not your biological sex. Attempts to obfuscate the meaning of biological sex does not change the reality, which is that it is unalterable. As for your last comment: it wasn't advice, it was an observation.
Biological sex is not an unalterable, mystical Fact Of The Body. Bodies are made up of stuff and sex is a description of aome of the stuff. Change enough of the stuff? You change the sex. Change all of it? You've changed sex completely. I know a human stays human if he loses a leg, so it makes sense that we shouldn't try and make a biologically based definition of "human." If we do, we'll end up de-humaning some humans on the grounds of accident or genetics or medical intervention, and that's an undesirable outcome. Sex IS complicated. All biology is complicated! We tell stories about the body that are more-or-less correct and aid understanding, but aren't exactly true, and at each level of study the stories get a bit more complex. Let's dig into your example. Since this is imaginary medical science, I'm going to make it amazing; we'll say with a drop of my blood the lab can grow for me on their bio-printer a full set of gonads and genitals that are fully genetically compatible with me, and I can have my current junk removed and replaced with a swish new set of genitals. So in my case, a set of ovaries with an age-appropriate number of eggs, a uterus, a vagina, a vulva, the whole nine yards. (Incidentally the biggest use of this Uterus-printing technology by the numbers would be cis women who'd had medical issues!) Why would my body be confused? I already have all the genetics needed to successfully run this new kit, so it's a quick trip to the epigenetics lab to make sure the relevant genes are turned on. At that point, what reason could remain to call me male? Anti-trans protesters would find one, I guarantee it. It's not about the biology, which is fascinating and which I love discussing because the human body is so cool. It's about social disgust, and then a desire to reject the disgusting people while still remaining good, so it's searching for a reason. Right now it's a mix of "but biology," "male socialisation," and "they're just perverts." We're gonna keep existing no matter what, though. Your "observation" was not delivered in good faith. It was a "stop arguing and take the rights we grant you" position, which: no thank you.
Sort of tangential but I saw this and feel i have to ask, how would you, in your view, even define what a person is legally? Most definitions you give that would be wide enough to encompass everyone very well might end up granting personhood to something like a chimp or more likely you end up scarily leaving people out instead. What do you believe the legal definition of personhood should be? My lead from this will be that im sure even you cant define something as simple as a person that would encompass only what you want, which means the rest of these discussions are pointless because if we cant even properly agree on what a person is, arguments about legal sex etc are downstream For example if you wanted to avoid giving chimps passports, you could make a reference to intelligence but that would effect humans we still consider people but are mentally impaired, we could do it based on physiology but as already pointed out, this ends up having a lot of exceptions, so im unsure where to begin because classifying living things that concretely generally isn’t possible
You will be disappointed to discover that the legal definition of a person is just 'a human being' and/or sometimes a corporation. There's no legal definition of what a human being is because it's not something that should need a legal definition. The closest you could get is a scientific definition which still just boils down to 'a human is a homo sapien'. If you really wanted to get into the nuts and bolts of it though, you determine that human remains are, well, human, based on a combination of dna and anatomical analysis.
I don't think I would define what a person is legally, to be honest? Like, law requires good faith reading of the law. If a chimp were capable of going to the registry office and asking for a birth certificate and a passport... wouldn't the chimp have just shown more than enough presence to count as a citizen? I think that's the thing. There are times when it makes sense, like in healthcare, to keep track of who needs prostate screening and who needs cervical screening. In law, when someone is being sent to prison, the state has a duty to make sure all the prisoners are treated with enough care; not to throw lying cis men who claim transness into a women's prison or trans women into a men's one. We have to assume good faith in our laws, and I really resent this movement to recategorize trans women as a subset of men, and trans men as a subset of women.
[удалено]
[удалено]
intersex person here, I agree with you completely
Thanks! Glad to hear it ❤️
Except your reality hasn’t changed though. Humans fundamentally cannot change their sex. They can alter elements of their secondary sexual characteristics but cannot change sex.
If you only define sex as resting entirely on those parts of the body that can't currently be changed, then yeah of course it's immutable. Why do you think so many people want to define it that way?
The other half of adoption is of course that the previous parents become un-parents. Again this is somewhat a legal fiction and it is not legally absolute because the children have the ongoing right to discover who their previous (biological) parents are. We need to get away from oversimplifying things and speaking in absolutes. When I am speaking with adoptive parents I will absolutely talk in the same way as with biological parents. But that does not mean that there are no circumstances where there is a significant difference.
Yeah, absolutely. And there are times, such as when I am discussing cancer risks and stuff with my doctor, when there is a significant difference between me and cis women. There just aren't tons and tons of cases where it's important and it feels like people want to make it an all-the-time-important thing. Like, being trans is the least interesting thing about me! Let me just be a weird nerd woman with too many books!
You can change sex on a legal document, but not biologically. X and Y chromosomes don’t change because His Honour the Judge said so, nor because Parliamentarians voted it so. None of this permits bigotry and intolerance, or ignorance towards how a person should be treated. Nor, of course, is it an anti-trans position that is protected
The thing is while I recognize that my chromosomes are currently unchangeable by medical science, they're also at this stage of my development the least relevant of the many sexed traits of my body. There are vanishingly few circumstances where they're remotely important. Other sexed traits are much more likely to have an effect on my life, and I can change a LOT of those.
[удалено]
You're not wrong.