Europe must not erase sex - We must resist the imposition of activist fantasies

False. Workable adjustments in sport, prisons & refuges can & have been made.

"inherent flaws"

Tell me about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/23/dozens-of-labour-mps-warn-of-chaos-for-firms-over-gender-recognition-advice

I'm sure Europe has been taking notes..

@Howseitgoin your own premise is flawed as you assume that "woman" Is an umbrella term for adult human females and transwomen. It is not, despite the lie some people try to force down on our throats.
The. Word. Woman. Is. Already. Taken. And it was taken when the legal debates around protecting women's rights occurred. At that time not a single dictionary, not a single one, referred to women other than as AHF.

False equivalence.
You are falsely assuming there aren't any valid associations in both cases when there are for trans people. IE an adult is more likely to have more maturity that a child so there is no association that validates their desire to be treated as a child. But trans people have associations to their opposite sex in terms of inclinations that when expressed are aligned with gendered social categorisations.

Another way to look at it is that Europe needs to prioritise established scientific fact over non-science based theories that rely on the metaphysical to support them.

There are now some very solid cases that show the detriment to female people when governments and organisations choose to prioritise the metaphysical theory. Sport is one. Prisons, refuges and rape support are others.

The ramifications of these examples are not diminished by the falsehood that ‘case by case’ decisions will eliminate the risk. It won’t. It never has yet to date. Yet we are told it is a sure and evidenced approach.

With each month that passes the inherent flaws in the weakening of safeguarding to follow these theoretical influences are being highlighted. That is the trajectory.

Um no.

The context was if sex doesn't exist how can sexism & discrimination exist? But the premise was flawed in that gender recognition doesn't invalidate sex recognition. Being categorised under one umbrella term (woman/man) doesn't mean we can't distinguish between sub categories of cis & trans AND manage competing rights which we clearly can by laws that allow for discrimination if compelling reasons exist.

For example the "proportional rule" in the UK refers to the legal principle that allows for the proportionate exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces, a concept affirmed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This means a service can exclude trans women from spaces like hospital wards or rape crisis centers, but only if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

And let's not forget restrictions &conditions sporting bodies impose.

We must resist the imposition of activist fantasies

Worth repeating.

Have you only just discovered Howses' little pearls of wisdom? You're in for a treat :)

There are legal protections for minors because statistically they are more vulnerable and less able to make decisions. Minor is defined as under 18. Would you say that some young men refusing to grow up mean they should be able to avail themselves of these legal protections and receive reduced sentences when they steal or rape? Or to force their parents to provide for them even when they're 40 because they feel like a child ?

If a criteria for the categorisation of who has access to single sex provisions isn’t unchangable and clearly defined, it makes the categorisation meaningless in the first instance.

Why not?

That isn’t even internally logical.

The "proposal" isn't saying sex doesn't exist, rather that gender also exists that complicates social categorisations.
It only complicates if you believe that how someone presents actually effects their sex. If anything, it has become more important to register what sex someone is as gender presentation has become more fluid.

Trans women & cis women existing aren't mutually exclusive so that hardly make sex irrelevant.
Trans women and women are mutually exclusive. What do the two categories have in common? Nothing.

O’Flaherty’s position stems from his long-standing advocacy to eliminate sex from law and practice, which culminated in his drafting of the Yogyakarta Principles in 2007, later updated in 2017 with a clear demand: that states must cease registering sex on all legal documents, including birth certificates.

With no recording of sex, everything would then become mixed sex, including prisons and all sports.

What could possibly go wrong?

And more to the point, how are all those laydees like India Willoughby who "just want to pee" going to get their kicks if the toilets all have men in them as well? How on earth are they going to get validated?

And when Jessica "wax my balls" Yaniv wants his balls waxed again, how disappointed is he going to be when the immigrant woman he tries to force to do the job turns out to be a hulking great bloke just like him who's only too happy to take on the task? And he'll have no recourse to the law to complain, because sex doesn't exist.

These people trying to abolish sex just haven't thought this through. Genderists don't want to abolish sex any more than sex realists do. They just want their gender feelz to matter more than sex, but only when it suits them.

The "proposal" isn't saying sex doesn't exist, rather that gender also exists that complicates social categorisations.

Trans women & cis women existing aren't mutually exclusive so that hardly make sex irrelevant.

The difficulty with that proposal is that if you are making the claim that sex is irrelevant, you have no hope of making the claim that gender is.

If sex doesn’t exist then how can sexism exist. (How convenient!)
If sex doesn’t exist the discriminating on the grounds of sex cannot be possible (How very convenient!)
If you think that sexism and discrimination based on sex don’t exist because sex doesn’t exist then you are either a liar or a fool.

And yet babies are still made the way they always were....

Categorisations based on an overly simplistic, binary view of sex don't reflect human diversity or modern scientific understanding. Current perspectives recognise that biological sex itself has natural variations, and that gender identity is a subjective complex phenomena that has implications on limited social categories.

<cough>bullshit<cough>

"And if they have not, what explains why legislators across so many states are suddenly deciding that biological sex — not only a basic fact of human reproduction but a cornerstone of equality and non-discrimination law — is a relic of the past to be discarded like phrenology or geocentrism?"

Because there's this thing called an 'oversimplification' that the sophistication of modernity has outgrown.

Categorisations based on an overly simplistic, binary view of sex don't reflect human diversity or modern scientific understanding. Current perspectives recognise that biological sex itself has natural variations, and that gender identity is a subjective complex phenomena that has implications on limited social categories.