Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Ask a stupid question...

56 replies

WallaceinAnderland · 12/05/2025 15:35

I can hardly believe what I have just read on another forum.

OP - Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't biological sex something different to the gender you were assigned at birth? Have I got this right? If I have, isn't it the case that a trans person could understand their gender identity as being their biological sex, and could therefore use the services that correspond to that whilst still being in-keeping with the wording of the EHRC guidance?

Responses:

  • Yes, you're right - sex assigned at birth and biological sex are different things.
  • The Supreme Court judgement, however, creates its own definition not based on any scientific classification. According to the ruling, "biological sex" simply means "sex of a person at birth." They make no further attempt to describe what sex at birth actually means.
  • Applied to humans, the term "biological sex" is meaningless except as a generalisation. It excludes all sorts of human bodies.
  • You've got this exactly right actually, biological sex is not as simple as what the doctors decided you were when you were born.
  • It's a term with no definition or bounds.
  • “Biological sex” isn’t a scientific term, it is a buzzword anti-trans groups like to use to describe birth sex. They also claim it’s binary and can’t change, which is reductive and just factually wrong.
  • Sex is just as much of a construct as gender.
  • What's on your birth certificate isn't evidence of your biological sex. It's a record of a doctor taking a look see at your genitals at birth and making a declaration.
OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Catiette · 22/08/2025 21:34

Accommodating exceptions is important. Denying the existence of recognisable patterns to do so is absurd.

Catiette · 22/08/2025 21:32

In other words, Titchy, you're arguing for the collapse of language itself on the basis that there's an exception to every rule we use to describe our world and organise our society.

It's a laughable argument.

Catiette · 22/08/2025 21:29

titchy · 12/05/2025 21:18

No it’s a fair point. The SC refers to ‘sex at birth’ without clearly defining what it means by those words. Given some people have indeterminate genitals at birth, then ‘at birth’ actually includes several days after birth. The question is then how many days after birth does the term ‘at birth’ still apply? Obviously a week or two. But it could equally be many more weeks. Years in fact. So until there’s another SC ruling, ‘sex at birth’ could mean that identified into at the age of 40.

And don’t get me started on the lack of definition of ‘sex’.

Grin

No it’s a fair point. The dictionary refers to ‘a carnivorous mammal, long domesticated as a pet and for catching rats and mice.’ without clearly defining what it means by those words. Given some cats never work out how to catch rats and mice, then ‘rats and mice’ actually includes small frogs and falling leaves. The question is then which of the things that a cat is known ‘for catching’ still apply? Obviously a frog or leaf. But it could equally be worms, badgers and invisible dust motes. Figments of the cat's imagination, in fact. So until there’s another dictionary definition, ‘catching rats and mice’ could mean 'dragging home the local farmer's cow'.

And don’t get me started on the lack of definition of ‘cat’.

feministmom4ever · 22/08/2025 20:36

Biologist here: we are a sexually dimorphic species (as in two sexes), because there are two types of gametes, sperm (male) and ovum (female). There is no third type of gamete. There is no gamete that is intermediate between sperm and ovum. There is no instance of an individual producing both sperm and ovum. A very small percentage of people are born with a DSD (0.018%), but these people still have a sex. No one is assigned a sex at birth, their sex was determined at conception, however some people with a DSD have had their sex incorrectly recorded at birth.
I am happy to provide further clarification.

Toseland · 22/08/2025 19:46

LOL!

Ask a stupid question...
Helleofabore · 22/08/2025 19:15

ErrolTheDragon · 22/08/2025 17:32

I.e. they find a female skeleton with some grave goods that are in some way at odds with current western gender stereotypes (eg a weapon) and declare her to be trans.

Show quote history

That does seem to be the pattern, yes.

ShrankLastWinter · 22/08/2025 17:34

What the Supreme Court FWS judgement makes very clear is that the concept of trans is unstable and has no workable legal definition.

LittleBitofBread · 22/08/2025 17:33

ErrolTheDragon · 22/08/2025 17:32

I.e. they find a female skeleton with some grave goods that are in some way at odds with current western gender stereotypes (eg a weapon) and declare her to be trans.

Show quote history

Yeah probably

ErrolTheDragon · 22/08/2025 17:32

LittleBitofBread · 22/08/2025 17:11

You laugh, but apparently there are study programmes in trans archaeology...

Show quote history

I.e. they find a female skeleton with some grave goods that are in some way at odds with current western gender stereotypes (eg a weapon) and declare her to be trans.

Dominoodles · 22/08/2025 17:29

So somehow we've gone from 'sex and gender are different things that don't always align' to 'sex and gender are the exact same thing and the sex changes according to the gender' in the space of like 5 years

JeremiahBullfrog · 22/08/2025 17:19

"Sex assignment at birth" is an attempt to determine biological sex, and is very occasionally wrong. So they are correct in a very narrow sense, that these are strictly different contexts. However the number of times doctors get it wrong in the modern west must be tiny (one in many thousands, even millions), and for the vast, vast majority of people with a trans identity there has never been the slightest shred of medical doubt as to what sex they are.

LittleBitofBread · 22/08/2025 17:11

PUGMEISTER21 · 22/08/2025 16:26

So picture the archaeological dig in 2000 years time and they find your body, how will it be described in terms of sex. "We have found the human remains of a Trans person"

Show quote history

You laugh, but apparently there are study programmes in trans archaeology...

PUGMEISTER21 · 22/08/2025 16:26

WallaceinAnderland · 12/05/2025 15:35

I can hardly believe what I have just read on another forum.

OP - Correct me if I've got this wrong, but isn't biological sex something different to the gender you were assigned at birth? Have I got this right? If I have, isn't it the case that a trans person could understand their gender identity as being their biological sex, and could therefore use the services that correspond to that whilst still being in-keeping with the wording of the EHRC guidance?

Responses:

  • Yes, you're right - sex assigned at birth and biological sex are different things.
  • The Supreme Court judgement, however, creates its own definition not based on any scientific classification. According to the ruling, "biological sex" simply means "sex of a person at birth." They make no further attempt to describe what sex at birth actually means.
  • Applied to humans, the term "biological sex" is meaningless except as a generalisation. It excludes all sorts of human bodies.
  • You've got this exactly right actually, biological sex is not as simple as what the doctors decided you were when you were born.
  • It's a term with no definition or bounds.
  • “Biological sex” isn’t a scientific term, it is a buzzword anti-trans groups like to use to describe birth sex. They also claim it’s binary and can’t change, which is reductive and just factually wrong.
  • Sex is just as much of a construct as gender.
  • What's on your birth certificate isn't evidence of your biological sex. It's a record of a doctor taking a look see at your genitals at birth and making a declaration.

So picture the archaeological dig in 2000 years time and they find your body, how will it be described in terms of sex. "We have found the human remains of a Trans person"

NotMyRealAccount · 14/05/2025 09:46

They so wish that it were so, and wish that they could persuade us that it were so and punish those of us who don't fall in line.

This ideology can't get in the bin fast enough as far as I'm concerned, but I suspect we will hear the bottom of many barrels being scraped before then.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/05/2025 09:42

TRAs know they’re lying, they are just spreading misinformation. “Allies” are often easily confused though.

Enough4me · 14/05/2025 09:40

We have to believe that sex doesn't exist, but there are male and female brains, and there is a process of changing with no defined perimeters, but it's vital we all say we believe it.
Clear as mud!

LittleBitofBread · 14/05/2025 09:39

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 14/05/2025 09:26

It shows how much these people have been influenced by stuff from America they have read on the internet, rather than real life. Midwife births are much less common in the US.

Show quote history

I didn't know that. Interesting point.

SerendipityJane · 14/05/2025 09:34

It's turtles all the way down ...

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 14/05/2025 09:26

LittleBitofBread · 14/05/2025 09:12

it's offensive and potentially sexist, too; it's generally the midwife, isn't it, who observes sex at birth? And the majority of midwives are women.

It shows how much these people have been influenced by stuff from America they have read on the internet, rather than real life. Midwife births are much less common in the US.

LittleBitofBread · 14/05/2025 09:12

it's offensive and potentially sexist, too; it's generally the midwife, isn't it, who observes sex at birth? And the majority of midwives are women.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 14/05/2025 08:50

Waitingfordoggo · 12/05/2025 21:10

They claim that they have science on their side and point to dubious/outdated/inaccurate research and ‘experts’ claiming that sex is much more complicated than we previously thought; that sex is a spectrum and that there are male and female brains. If science really is on their side, how come the medical establishment is still identifying sex on scans (or at birth for that matter) based on the baby’s genitals? Surely the NHS wouldn’t continue to use this supposedly outdated practice if science has decided that sex is in fact very complex and not what we previously thought.

Don’t encourage them, or they’ll stop recording it at all. Stupider things have happened.

Sunnyperiods · 14/05/2025 08:30

Out of interest, what do kids learn in biology these days about sex? I presume they still study ‘old fashioned biology (or maybe not, it’s a long time since my kids were at school)? 🤔

titchy · 12/05/2025 23:22

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 12/05/2025 15:48

They walk among us. People who think that oppressive cultural gender norms include the idea that women must have ovaries.

And serve on juries, vote in elections…

EweSurname · 12/05/2025 22:50

TheNightingalesStarling · 12/05/2025 21:23

Maybe we should all have our chromosomes tested at birth, so they know is are XX, XY, XXY XYY and have that recorded?

Ah but chromosomes are but one star in the nebulous constellation of factors that constitute sex

dubaichocolate · 12/05/2025 22:42

I was listening to Iain Dale’s podcast with Tessa Dunlop. Around the time of the SC ruling she’d seen a pregnant transman and thought it was a man who had a womb. I had to stop listening.

Swipe left for the next trending thread