What is the biological definition of a woman (and man)?

[Wombat2WombatCombat]

I understand the argument for single sex spaces, but just for the avoidance of any doubt, does anyone have an exact, biological definition of a woman (or man) that we can hold people to? If we want to enforce the idea of single-sex spaces, we will need an exact criteria to determine who is or isn’t a ‘real’ woman, so I was wondering if anyone could tell me exactly what that is?

If DSDs didn’t exist then I would be happy with that definition. However they do, and we can’t just ignore them simply because they are a tiny proportion. There are 79 countries in the world with a smaller population than that of intersex people - we don’t go round pretending they don’t exist because it’s inconvenient

No-one is ignoring them. What makes you think we are? Bit silly to say we're pretending they don't exist given how much talk there has been about them on this thread don't you think?

What is your definition of intersex btw and how can you know who is intersex without knowing what a sex is?

I will repeat my questions from a few pages ago.

Please define 'nobody', 'issue', 'specifically' and in fact, 'define' in depth and to our satisfaction. And be assured that if you simply refer to the dictionary, or to google we shall swivel to ask for further clarification of the terms you have used in your definition.

Also, 'wombat'. And when does a wombat cease to be a wombat and not a possum or a kangaroo.

Also, 'combat'. When does combat become combat and what is all its iterations so we can be sure you have covered all combat and not left anything out to be undefined.

And please make sure no definitions are circular.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

If it is impossible to test for an individual’s sex, as you seem to be implying, then how is it possible to enforce a single sex space? I know men are supposed to not go in there, but surely the fact you feel they are needed suggest that some will want to regardless, so you need a way to prevent it?

Of course it's not impossible to test and it's disingenuous of you to suggest anyone has said that. It's entirely possible and if you had any knowledge of biology at all you'd know that. What you are asking is whether you should expect people to be tested before they access female-only spaces to which the answer is no. Secondary sexual characteristics are a very clear indicator of a person's sex. We can see those. And no, a woman with facial hair does not look like a man and a man with no facial hair does not look like a woman as the secondary sexual characteristics work together to be a very, very reliable indicator of a person's biological sex.

If you can’t test on entering, how are you going to prevent them from doing so?

@RVN123

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Assuming you consider trans people, and the sort of people who would pretend to be trans perverts, that trust is not going to be enough based on the evidence you give in favour of not allowing self determination

WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL was that comment deleted for MNHQ?

There was NOTHING in it that was transphobic or inflammatory.

You should be able to tell me why my comment is unsuitable, it was perfectly relevant to what we are discussing, and it was also a possible solution for the OP who is so keen to categorize the sexes in such a way to keep them seperate.

If it is impossible to test for an individual’s sex

This is nuts. Not one person has said it is impossible to test for sex. Not one.

You really are not performing to optimum specifications are you?

Some men are perverts. I didn't say trans men or trans women were perverts.
That's on YOU if you read it that way.

Most sex crimes are committed by MEN. Or are we also pretending that this isn't a FACT anymore MNHQ?

Why are people indulging this utter bollocks?

If you can’t test on entering, how are you going to prevent them from doing so?

What has changed in the past 20 years that has meant that all of a sudden tests on sex to enter female single sex spaces are needed.

YOU are the one that continues to assert that some test is needed. YOU obviously think that males pass as females. That is some kind problem for you it seems, maybe you need to address it.

Whereas we can tell just fine thank you.

Or do you want a facial recognition software that also judges gait as a person comes up to be on each door and it will not open unless the candidate 'passes'.

What I want to know is, how do people like the OP decide which bovine's white liquid they want in their tea, seeing as it is impossible for them to determine what sex any lifeform is?

@Wombat2WombatCombat

We are never going to be able to 100% prevent predatory men from taking advantage of a situation and using that to hurt/humiliate/traumatise women and girls.

Isn't that a fun thing to accept!

What we can do is to not make it easier. By removing safe spaces and invalidating protections that currently exist for women and girls we make it socially acceptable for any man to use those spaces. By continuing to have legal protections in place we make it socially unacceptable and we make it so that people can be penalised if they breach those legal protections.

So we can't insist on a birth certificate or genetic report in order to access a female only rape survivors group. What we can do is say that only natal females are allowed to access that group as it is considered a suitable exception under the Equality Act. If a natal male then goes against that so that he can sit and feel titillated by hearing stories of women being raped, he can be barred from the group and if he becomes aggressive or persistent he can be reported to the police. During the process of investigating that complaint there would be opportunity to 'prove' the biological sex and substantiate the complaint.

If you can’t test on entering, how are you going to prevent them from doing so?
A shopkeeper doesn't need to see the ID of the 13 year old in front of them to know that they are too young to be buying cigarettes. Sometimes things are just bloody obvious.

@NecessaryScene

‘Number divisible by two’ is a definition that carries with it an exact criteria for it being the case,

Does it? Is zero even? Is pi even? Is minus-two even? Is two-i even? I'm going to need to push you on this. This isn't as straightforward as you're making out.

And how are you defining "objective" and "not"? And what do you mean by "clarification"? Until you can define "clarification", I'm not sure we can help you.

@Helleofabore

If you can’t test on entering, how are you going to prevent them from doing so?

What has changed in the past 20 years that has meant that all of a sudden tests on sex to enter female single sex spaces are needed.

YOU are the one that continues to assert that some test is needed. YOU obviously think that males pass as females. That is some kind problem for you it seems, maybe you need to address it.

Whereas we can tell just fine thank you.

Or do you want a facial recognition software that also judges gait as a person comes up to be on each door and it will not open unless the candidate 'passes'.

If no test is needed, does this fear everyone has around people pretending to be trans going into women’s toilets is unfounded, either on that it won’t happen or that it won’t be a problem if it does? If so then that’s fantastic, as it means there isn’t a problem for anyone - trans, ‘real’ or otherwise

[quote HalfShrunkMoreToGo]@Wombat2WombatCombat

We are never going to be able to 100% prevent predatory men from taking advantage of a situation and using that to hurt/humiliate/traumatise women and girls.

Isn't that a fun thing to accept!

What we can do is to not make it easier. By removing safe spaces and invalidating protections that currently exist for women and girls we make it socially acceptable for any man to use those spaces. By continuing to have legal protections in place we make it socially unacceptable and we make it so that people can be penalised if they breach those legal protections.

So we can't insist on a birth certificate or genetic report in order to access a female only rape survivors group. What we can do is say that only natal females are allowed to access that group as it is considered a suitable exception under the Equality Act. If a natal male then goes against that so that he can sit and feel titillated by hearing stories of women being raped, he can be barred from the group and if he becomes aggressive or persistent he can be reported to the police. During the process of investigating that complaint there would be opportunity to 'prove' the biological sex and substantiate the complaint.[/quote]
If I my ask, what is the exact provision in the equality act about the right to single sex spaces? I had a look but I couldn’t find anything

Well it only took 616 posts for your real agenda to surface OP.

OP, just go and live in the countryside for a bit. Become acquainted with intelligent life forms like, dunno, sheep, and see how rapidly they work out which sex is which.

Except in rare cases, it's bloody easy.

If no test is needed, does this fear everyone has around people pretending to be trans going into women’s toilets is unfounded, either on that it won’t happen or that it won’t be a problem if it does? If so then that’s fantastic, as it means there isn’t a problem for anyone - trans, ‘real’ or otherwise

This is the oddest thing you've written. You think the fact that there is so objective test of whether someone is a woman in some ways means the fear that men might pretend to be yrans in order to access women's spaces is unfounded? You're ignoring all questions because you are not really looking to converse but just on the off chance that you decide to actually engage, how are these issues connected?

Everyone is saying that we can tell who is a man and who is a woman with a very high degree of accuracy so yes it will happen and yes it will be a problem even without genetic testing everyone

@Wombat2WombatCombat took less that 10 seconds to google and find the law so have to believe you haven't looked

Equality act, section 7

Single-sex services: paragraph 277^
Effect
733.
This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.
734.
Single sex services are permitted where:
• only people of that sex require it;
• there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
• if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
• they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
• they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
• they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.
735.
In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.
736.
These exceptions also cover public functions in respect of the “back-room” managerial, administrative and finance decisions which allow such single-sex services to be provided.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

If DSDs didn’t exist then I would be happy with that definition

@Wombat2WombatCombat

Haven't you understood the various posts here (and you can check actual biological science) which have outlined the fact that everyone has a biological sex - even people with DSDs. They are still of one sex or the other, but with 'variations' or 'differences' in the way that sex develops in their bodies.

Here are Dr Emma Hilton a developmental biologist & research scientist & Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist, explaining this in terms which are accessible to non-research scientists and laypeople:

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

If no test is needed, does this fear everyone has around people pretending to be trans going into women’s toilets is unfounded, either on that it won’t happen or that it won’t be a problem if it does? If so then that’s fantastic, as it means there isn’t a problem for anyone - trans, ‘real’ or otherwise

This is the oddest thing you've written. You think the fact that there is so objective test of whether someone is a woman in some ways means the fear that men might pretend to be yrans in order to access women's spaces is unfounded? You're ignoring all questions because you are not really looking to converse but just on the off chance that you decide to actually engage, how are these issues connected?

Everyone is saying that we can tell who is a man and who is a woman with a very high degree of accuracy so yes it will happen and yes it will be a problem even without genetic testing everyone

My reasoning is that I had assumed that some way of determining sex was either already in place or needed to be put in place, and if it wasn’t, there would be massive problems with regards to sex segregation. However, by the sounds of it, there is no direct provision or enforcement of single sex spaces, nor does it seem to be implied that there should be. Given that this has been in place and will continue to be in place without problems as you guys say for ages, then presumably all the fears around the loss of single sex spaces and everything are unfounded, as like you guys say, we have managed all of this fine without needing to directly safeguard female for hundreds of years. This mitigates the concerns I had to begin with about the need and arguments for single sex spaces that I mentioned in my first post, and also means it doesn’t really matter about the lack of a explicit, direct definition of male or female as we won’t need to enforce anything with it anyway

If it is impossible to test for an individual’s sex, as you seem to be implying, then how is it possible to enforce a single sex space? I know men are supposed to not go in there, but surely the fact you feel they are needed suggest that some will want to regardless, so you need a way to prevent it?
@Wombat2WombatCombat

Hein? what? What words are you adding to my posts?
The fact I feel what about what?
The I feel that tests are needed?

For ALL THE LURKERS, if you had any doubt, any at all that this whole thread was based on gaslighting, please take note of this sleight of hand.

The poster asks for visible biological traits that categorise women and gives them permission to boot men out of toilets.
and on being told that there should be no tests but men should police themselves then switches it round to say I asked for tests for men to not gain entrance to women's toilets.

and then you make it out as if i said that testing was impossible.
I said no such thing. I implied no such thing.

My message is clear:
There are no hoops to jump through to win the prize of access to women and girls. we are not things you win at the end of a match.
it doesn't matter how accurate your test is and your elation at fooling the machine!
Women and girls are not things!

you are deceitful.
and the worst type of deceit is when you believe your own lies.

you are so far up shits creek, you've forgotten what water actually looks like.

[quote HalfShrunkMoreToGo]@Wombat2WombatCombat took less that 10 seconds to google and find the law so have to believe you haven't looked

Equality act, section 7

Single-sex services: paragraph 277^
Effect
733.
This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.
734.
Single sex services are permitted where:
• only people of that sex require it;
• there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
• if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
• they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
• they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
• they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.
735.
In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.
736.
These exceptions also cover public functions in respect of the “back-room” managerial, administrative and finance decisions which allow such single-sex services to be provided.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

[/quote]
I found that bit, but that specifically relates to service providers rights to discriminate in their provision of services based on sex. It doesn’t say anything about service users having a right to single sex spaces, or the prohibition of those of a different sex entering single sex spaces

Intersex is having a medical anomoly though, like there are people with 0,1,2 or 3 kidneys or legs. That doesn't mean that the default isn't 2 kidneys and 2 legs. You'd describe a human being having 2 legs and 2 arms, you wouldn't list all the possible exceptions. Besides, how many intersex people actually don't blend in with their preferred perceived single sex (if they do prefer one above the other)? We have never in the history of the world needed to accomodate seperately for intersex people, because it isn't a problem for anyone. Pretending you're a different sex is.

That's why the whole "it's about gender not sex" discussion is bollocks as well, since the TRA's are trying to get men to acces single SEX spaces, not single gender.