Supreme Court ruling: can women’s groups still choose to allow trans women?

[Blackdow]

I’m just looking for someone to explain it to me. Sorry 🤦‍♀️.

Now that’s it’s been clarified in law than trans women do not come under the “women” category in the equality act, so we can use the single sex exemption to keep them out without fear of being sued, can place still choose to allow them?

For instance, a sexual assault support group for women or a woman’s group of any kind was previously being told they had to allow trans women as the equality act was being misrepresented. Now, the single sex exemption can be used properly so trans women can be told no. But what if they group wanted to allow them? Is the single sex exemption optional? Or do they now have to follow it? I’m just trying to make sure I understand it.

And yet it happens. I mention the fact that some with Swyer syndrome can give birth without help to point out that they do in fact exist (science is about specificity if it doesn't fit exactly then the categories have to be changed/updated).

No, you misunderstand. People with Swyer’s giving birth with help is exceedingly rare. People with Swyer’s do not have ovaries so it’s impossible for them to conceive, let alone give birth.

So you’ve just found out females (are you defining females - seeing as you think it is rather difficult?) ovulate before puberty. You’re clearly not a biologist then.

So ‘I’m a scientist’ doesn’t really wash does it.

Yes I disagree. I have read research of those who agree with his argument and those that disagree and find the argument against his more sound, not to mention in his public appearances he seems to parrot misinformation about key social and scientific topics. He has obvious bias, and from my research, hasn't participated in any modern research papers in opposition or in agreement with him.

I would not be happy going to what I was told by advertising was single sex to then have a trans woman man in there!!
No!

'Diversifying Gender Categories and the Sex/Gender System' by Ridgeway and Saperstein 2024.

From the Sociology Department of Stanford. No exactly a bunch of scientists.
.

'Multimodal models of animal sex: breaking binaries leads to a better understanding of ecology and evolution' McLaughlin et al. 2023

This has no application to humans at all and, in any event, again talks about different traits.
.

'Biological sex, by-products, and other continuous variables' Neuhoff 2022.

From the Psychology Department of Wooster College, Ohio. I don't see the relevance of this.
.

'No Way Out of the Binary' Sanz 2017.

An article on the history of science. Interesting but, again, irrelevant.
.

'Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice' Ghisleni et al. 2016.

This is about archaeology and anthropology.

Do you even know who he is?

He's one of the UKs leading experts on human sex and reproduction

Of course you can. What on earth makes you think you cannot?

Have you been asleep for the last week?

The UK Supreme Court judgement said no

If they want to provide support to women and transwomen, then advertising as a single-sex women’s group seems short-sighted. There will be transwomen that do not know the group is open to them.

clarity would not only help women who want a single sex group avoid this group, it would help one of the populations they want to serve.

My area of expertise is mainly in biology and biochemistry. While I knew majority of females reach sexual maturity during puberty (as is the case for humans and most mammals), and how puberty impacts the body, I assumed that puberty was the catalyst for fertility since it's when periods begin (since that's the school of thought I operate under, since generally, ovulation and puberty occur in tandem). However, I remembered a few cases of children getting pregnant as young as 4 (a horribly dark subject) and assumed it was due to early puberty. However, I do stand corrected, as while ovulation "typically" begins during puberty, that isn't always the case.

I am a scientist, and scientists can have bias and scientists can be wrong. That is how different schools of thought occur. I am always learning on the job and actively look to broaden my horizons. I previously operated under the assumption that sex was binary in my younger years before my worldview was changed.

Reputation doesn't substitute research. There are hosts of people that are famous for things and were once experts and now aren't.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes that is what binary means, and that is what sex is. There are two sexes, male and female. You cannot name a third sex because there isn't one. This is because there is no evolutionary need for one.

You confuse the binary of sex itself, with the various different ways we define or determine a living things sex.

There is a very small proportion of humans (and by small I mean lower than 0.001%) in which our knowledge has not yet reached a level where we could definitively determine their sex (those with severe cases of ovotesticular disorder or some form of mosaicism for example). This doesn't mean that they aren't either male of female, or in between the two. It's simply that our understanding is not at that level yet.

Sexual characteristics are obviously bimodal. No one is arguing that they aren't.

What you are saying is that someone with a 7 inch penis is more male than someone with a 5 inch penis, and that is simply ridiculous.

If your definitions of male and female are so narrow that they exclude anything that reproduces sexually then that is the problem, because there is no third sex.

To put this 'intersex' to rest:

If there are truly people with mixed sex characteristics are there:
People who have a uterus that carried a baby to term that they fathered from the sperm from their own testicles?
People that are xy and got pregnant without donor eggs ( there is 1 known case ever who had mosaicism and had 1 xx ovary, only place they had xx in their whole body)
People who ejaculated eggs through their penis?
A third gamete?

I know the last two are silly but the first two show why sex is divided into two classes, even is the more severe disorders, the people have streaks not ovaries or testicles, are infertile and often need hormone replacement therapy to get the hormones their bodies need as biologically male or female.

Sex is not a spectrum. You cannot mix and match in the sexual development to get to a complete different category. You just get deviations in the pathways within the existing categories. So even DSD proves the binary.

Arguing differently is just plain silly by now.

I'd love a link to any peer reviewed papers on pregnant 4 year olds that have not yet started puberty.

And to the OP, as the EHRC has laid out, any association of more than 25 people using sex as a protected characteristic to limit members, that sex has to be biological sex, and so they should not say this group is women only whilst including some males.

Any association that does not follow the guidance opens itself up to litigation, and therein lies the problem. It takes a lot of time, energy, courage and money to take these things to court.

AI is not a dictionary. This is what Google search spat out. It's not some truth.
This shows the danger of AI for the less bright a lot of people some, that they imagine it's some authority or scientific source.

We’d also be able to live underwater. If humans were eagles we’d be able to fly and crush things in our talons. If humans were seahorses we could spawn thousands of young at once.

Oh no, don’t mention the seahorses…

For source 2:
If you read the article, it does include mammals and even humans in its body. But I shall provide a human specific source: Is sex still binary Christoph Rehmann-Sutter 2023.

For my last source: And? archelogy and biology go hand in hand, if you had done research, one of the authors is specialised in bioarcheology, so...

Here are a few more sources, regarding humans specifically and by people with expertise in biology:
"During the two days the experts discussed what has been long understood, that human sex isn’t strictly binary..."
Scientists reject a binary view of human sex at NIH symposium by Max Barnhart 2024

The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female are not Enough by Anne Fausto-Sterling 1993, revisited in 2000 (while it is written as somewhat satirical, Fausto-Sterling has reiterated her opposition for the sex binary).

The following is a news article in a psychology journal, but the writer is a renowned biologist and the sources in the article are amazing: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/governing-behavior/202006/our-biology-is-not-binary

Am I saying there's five sexes? No, I'm saying that sex isn't a binary system, but bimodal, where individuals can be on the two peaks or anywhere in between. The insistence in the medical field to keep the binary system actively harms intersex individuals and even those who aren't but don't fall on the 'peaks' of this system. I think keeping the 'female' 'male' labels are good but doctors need to look at more than just genitalia at birth, and at the very least 'intersex' should become a recognised marker for a birth certificate.

Report Of Two Cases Of Precocious Puberty by Josephine Davidson 1958

x.com/Fausto_Sterling/status/1229806460340768768?t=JsUVqMp4etsMcaIdBwTQ6Q&s=19

I specifically said before starting puberty. Precocious puberty is puberty.

"During the two days the experts discussed what has been long understood, that human sex isn’t strictly binary..."
Scientists reject a binary view of human sex at NIH symposium by Max Barnhart 2024

"People who have a uterus that carried a baby to term that they fathered from the sperm from their own testicles?" there have been no modern records of that, though there have been records of intersex people able to carry pregnancy to term with their own eggs and also have their own sperm, but haven't impregnated themselves because the baby would suffer from extreme inbreeding.

You can think it doesn't disprove the binary, I think it does. Regardless it doesn't negate the fact that medically we are in need of an overhaul and forcing intersex individuals to conform to one sex and not have an "intersex" marker for birth certificates is outdated leading to significant problems for them later in life. The fact that an intersex individual has to go through the same hoops as a trans person just to change their sex marker to a sex that equally applies is silly.