Jess Phillips appointed a minister to focus on tackling violence against women and girls and domestic violence.

Female is a matter of biology. You've got it all backwards.

Thats why we shouldn't allow a definition of sex that isn't based on something other than biology. Sex is reproductive potential, not an aquired gender.

The EqA doesnt need sex clarifying because sex doesnt have multiple meanings.

In what situations should a man be treated like he's a woman?

I don't think we should, but the GRA says its possible. Its up to the government to clarify when and why.

So what about infertile women. What about women who have had a hysterectomy. Are they still women? Do they still experience discrimination based on still looking like they could get pregnant.

Of course they’re women, otherwise they wouldn’t have a female condition rendering them infertile. Ditto hysterectomy. You can’t have a hysterectomy unless you’re a woman. Women experience all sorts of discrimination, and older women experience the particular kind that sees them as old and no longer capable of getting pregnant (or “fuckable”, as it’s often crudely expressed).

It’s astonishing that people still trot out these ridiculous, disingenuous arguments.

I think the point was that we are in danger of suggesting that there are two types of woman. Use of the term 'biological woman' must be resisted; it is the latest in the long line of linguistic manipulations which have been created to suggest that males can be women too.

In what situations should a man be treated like he's a woman?

Female is a matter of biology. You've got it all backwards.

Glad to hear Jess has this appointment, she's been consistently speaking up on this issue more than anyone else in govt or opposition for years.

I wonder if she regrets resigning her shadow role over Gaza after being targeted by a violent and threatening pro-Palestinian campaign throughout this election period?

To have a legal clarity that sex means biological sex it means that other types of sex exist. Which they don't.

Doing this would be weaponised and the more we keep trying to put laws in to redefine reality against unreality the more the unreality will get used to make more bad law.

The only solution is to Repeal the GRA.

By defining biological sex, were in danger of making woman a subset of female, and therefore changing the definition of female. Similar to saying there are two types of women - cis and trans, there will be two types of female - biological and legal (?).

The GRA is a document to give someone a gender, and be treated as if they are the opposite sex in certain situations, not that they are the opposite sex. Clarify the GRA to say when men should be treated as if they are female, but we dont need to change the definition of sex to do that.

You're not wrong, but I met a younger (late 20s) transitioner a few years back who you'd struggle to spot until he spoke, and he might need those protections. Also, when your CV says "Alice" and your graduation date is five years ago, the recruiter can't see you to see your actual sex and will make assumptions based on name and inferred approximate age.

My point isn't that TW pass, most of them don't, but that in cases where they are perceived as female, they would be protected on the basis of perceived sex, so clarifying "sex" as biological in law does not affect their legal protections.

The ultimate fantasy of a 40/50 something AGP male : being mistaken for a young lass who would therefore need the protections afforded to females of childbearing age

Yes! It's such a cliché. The previous government knew what a woman was and systematically set about making them, poorer, sicker and removing their rights.

I am absolutely loving the appointments this government is making. People who actually know and care about the work their department needs to do. Baffling that that's something new.

Defining women in law as "females of any age" and defining "female" as having its biology textbook meaning doesn't stop TW from being protected from discrimination and harassment. The Equality Act 2010 doesn't just protect people who have a protected characteristic, but also those who are perceived to have it. A derailer asked about the "passing" TW who gets discriminated against when applying for a job because he's perceived as being able to become pregnant. He would be able to claim discrimination on the basis of having been perceived as female. TW who don't pass would still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment because clarifying the definition of sex has no impact on the definition of gender reassignment.

So I don't understand why the derailers have a bee in their bonnet about making "sex" mean "biological" for EA purposes. It has no impact on TWs, a beneficial effect on TM as it ensures that they have the right to access female services like cervical and breast screening, and benefits women.

Also (forgive me, I'm on a roll) if you don't agree, that's fine.

But perhaps those of us who do think clarity is important might be permitted to say so and discuss it without constant derailing of 'youre wrong because I don't agree'.

It would be like setting up a charity to help save the rainforest, without bothering to define what a rainforest is.

Cue wasting resources on issues that are without the scope of the aims of the charity.

Is this copse in a rainy area a rainforest? What about this clump of trees that's a bit damp? Where do you draw the line?

If you don't draw the line clearly your impact will be diluted by wasting resources on things that were not your primary aim.

(Disclaimer for our favourite derailers: NB this is an analogy to illustrate my previous point. I realise we aren't talking about charities/rainforest).

The constant faux naivety of the 'we should stop wasting time and energy on nit picking about definitions' is achingly frustrating.

As other posters have eloquently demonstrated, it's the key to good law making.

To those arguing that it's a distraction - have you ever been involved in drafting legislation? Because I have, and I have seen first hand how precise definitions are key to workable legislation. It takes weeks/ months of 'nit picking' as you put it to ensure that the set of instructions does what it's intended to do.

Legislation is just like computer programming. Everything has to be defined exactly. It's no good telling the computer 'oh well you know what I meant' if there's a logical failure in the instructions you've given it.

Law is the same. It needs absolute clarity and no flexibility in interpretation.

If anyone is wondering whether misogyny is a thing of the past-just have a look at the comments on Twitter under the Home Office announcement of Jess's appointment.

Not having a clear definition of "woman" and "man" means that judges will struggle apply misogyny as an aggravating factor when applying sentence guidelines to determine a sentence, should misogyny become a hate crime category, in the cases outlined. This prevents such hate crime legislation from helping women and could be used against transmen to increase their sentences unduly.

A book called "Normal Life" by a US transman activist lawyer called Dean Spade has, in its introduction, a case study of a transman Jim who was placed in a male prison and predictably harassed by the male inmates, then refused a transfer to the female estate because the judge took the view that if you say you're a man, you get treated as a man. This is an example of a time when defining women as female in law would have rightly helped a transman by forcing that judge to allocate Jim to the correct prison for Jim's sex.

Leaving the definition of "woman" open to interpretation in the UK will lead to similar abuses of women here.

The world has certainly moved on from the inspid so-called 'third wave'. #MeToo at the very least should have been evidence of that much. Their bleating protestations of women 'gate keeping' feminism couldn't even have been possible without the very difficult progress - won at significant personal cost and in some cases a fight to the death - achieved by the first and second waves. And so has the derisive attempt of some theorists in that vein to redefine what a woman is, without consulting other women or seeking their express consent.

The irony.

I've struggled with infertility. I don't ovulate. That makes me atypical. My female body is designed to work in a particular way, but doesn't do the job it was intended to do. The batshit questioning that this makes me somehow not a woman would be hilarious, if I wasn't aware that some activists either take it seriously or pretend to.

Are you suggesting that a human who is born deaf, for example, is something less of a human? That sort of nth degree is the logical conclusion of your entirely illogical fallacy.

Trans women do not get pregnant. I'd have thought that would be patently obvious.

I'm sure I heard Wes Streeting mentioning a consultation on reform of the GRA so we could well be back on that merry go round again in the next year.

We should have a legal limit on how often the Govt can hold a consultation on the same issue of once per decade.

To the contrary, MRAs love it when we stop saying "men" and instead say "perpetrators". It lets them pretend that battery, murder, and rape are done by both sexes to the same extent and fuels their "both are just as bad" narrative.

The importance of clarity cannot be under-estimated when it comes to law, to governance or any situation in which critical evaluation and judgement is required.

1)"Clarity is a “gateway” standard. If a statement is unclear, one cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, it is impossible to tell anything about a statement without knowing what it is saying.

2)The first and most important step in clear and critical thinking, is about understanding the issue, problem, goal, or objective.If you're not clear, you risk solving the wrong problem.

3)Clarity is an important standard of critical thought. Clarity of communication is one aspect of this. We must be clear in how we communicate our thoughts, beliefs, and reasons for those beliefs.

4)Careful attention to language is essential here. For example, when we talk about morality, one person may have in mind the conventional morality of a particular community, while another may be thinking of certain transcultural standards of morality.

5)Defining our terms can greatly aid us in the quest for clarity.
Clarity of thought is important as well; this means that we clearly understand what we believe, and why we believe it.

6)Consistency is a key aspect of critical thinking. Our beliefs should be consistent. We shouldn’t hold beliefs that are contradictory. If we find that we do hold contradictory beliefs, then one or both of those beliefs are false. This is a logical inconsistency.

7)if you can’t say it clearly you don’t understand it yourself.” Clarity and comprehension go hand in hand"

As part of one of my degrees, I studied law in a couple of areas relevant to this topic and the one thing all of my lecturers and tutors hammered into us is that definitions must be precise or they are useless. The law requires precision to work properly otherwise you’re relying on judges’ interpretations of what they think the law means. When it comes to GRA 2004 and EA 2010 there are imprecisions in the legislation that are causing difficulties in implementation and widely differing judicial interpretations. If legislators want a certain thing to happen they must be precise (and realistic) in the drafting of legislation otherwise they cause confusion which can prevent the law working in practice/achieving the intended aims.

As for Jess Phillips, her career in parliament to date has left me unsure as to what her stance is on many issues so I am ambivalent but hopeful regarding her appointment. Also, whether she can achieve anything or not depends on the attitudes of other ministers - will they lend her legal support, financial support, allow her to critique the work of their departments?