Is the concept of 'Legal' sex dead and burried?

[Apollo441]

On the back of the Supreme Court judgement, is the concept of 'Legal' sex introduced by Lady Haldane now defunct. i.e there is no such thing as legal sex now.

Agree, I see it as akin to religion, in that it's about a person's beliefs and lifestyle. There's no need for my religion to be listed on my passport, and likewise no need for anyone's self-declared gender identity. However important these things may be to the individual, and I am not trivialising the importance of beliefs. Passports and the like are about identifying people based on objective characteristics. The old definition of identity, meaning how someone is distinguished from others, rather than how they see themselves!

I'd be for recording both actual sex and cross-sex gender identity where appropriate, in order to avoid errors if someone passes (stop laughing - it has happened) and to smooth social interactions.

My preference would be for official documentation to record actual sex, and for Stonewall (or perhaps a new, less batshit operation) to dig out their “Some people are trans, get over it” posters to educate organisations on the fact that while biological sex is fixed, some people prefer to present as the opposite sex, which is perfectly fine (provided they’re not trying to access single-sex spaces for the opposite sex, obviously).

Passport photos are supposed to look like the person, so if someone has facial surgery or transitions and gets a radically different look, their passport photo can reflect that without their sex marker changing.

I'm sure this point has been made but surely GR certificates now prove that the person is biologically not the sex they are claiming, so less than useless for purposes of trying to get access to single sex spaces. The fully male-looking person without a GRC is more difficult to refuse entry to single sex provisions than one presenting themselves with one

I have always used the religion analogy, self ID ultimately a matter of faith.

I am happy that we have freedom of religion but do not want anyone's religion to become basis for law.

Especially when the scientific concept of biological sex can do a better job.

I think not, because the existing statutory and non-statutory guidance says, you can exclude a TW from certain women-only spaces if you have a good reason, but if he has a GRC it must be a very good reason. To paraphrase. Hopefully the EHRC will sort this with their new guidance.

I think in some ways it's akin to the problem of the NHS computer not calling in transmen for regular screening, because some numpty TRAs campaigned for the right to change the sex marker on your patient record. Which is bloody stupid anyway as your patient record is not a piece of ID but is supposed to contain useful information about your health.

It would be quite possible for patient records to have an extra field so it's Sex = F, Gender Identity = M, or a popup saying this patient is FtM trans. It would even be useful, because trans people often have complex medical needs.

But at least now it's easier to argue that sex can't be overwritten by gender identity, and we might have less dumb arguments from Stonewall about how the NHS computer should somehow be able to divine biological sex without recording biological sex.

I think the concept of legal sex was on thin ice before this ruling. In order to get a GRC, male applicants have to prove they have been living as woman, which is a concept both sides of this argument believe to be completely absurd.

Have the EHRC said they are going to issue new guidance?

I believe this thread relates to it;

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5313803-womens-rights-to-be-prioritised-in-equality-law-revamp

Isn't there something sticky in here though, to do with the right to privacy - that in effect, people have the right to conceal the fact that they are not the sex that they are pretending to be?(I know in a medical setting you would assume that privacy is out the window anyway, so it seems ridiculous to be allowed to hide your bio sex)

In a medical setting it's definitely ridiculous.

If one of the main rationales for the GRA was that trans people who were living under the radar shouldn't have to out themselves every time they needed to produce ID... yes, that's the privacy argument and that's the sticky bit.

But I think a lot of this depended on the idea that it was a special carveout for a tiny number of passing trans people who were just living quietly and not bothering anyone... and that's been tested to destruction. Which is a shame for those who were just living quietly and not bothering anyone, but there you go.

It still holds relevance in the context of our established church, the Church of England - whose homophobia won’t “allow” it to marry same-sex couples unless one of those couples has a GRC calling them the opposite sex.

While other religions can do what they want, the Church of England holds a special place in law and has obligations to the population which a GRC allows some gay men and lesbians to access through this legal fiction.

If we didn’t have a homophobic, established church we might not have had the GRA in the first place.

The judgement mentions in several places: when a space is for women then women means biological sex. And that it is not feasable or reasonable for anyone to try and work out whether a particular man has a certificate or not (and it infringes his privacy to ask) and it makes no practical difference to the women in that space if he is a man with or without a certificate.

Where something is single sex for women, it excludes all men on a sex classed basis. Regardless of certificate or not.

Not sure of the legal judgement but the way I see this is that the government will legally recognise a man as a woman but it cannot force everyone else in society to do so. Thus single sex spaces are valid.

I feel I should follow up on this, as the debate raged all day about this amongst other things. The judgment points out that there shouldn't be this asymmetry and it's unworkable. So, maybe we can hope that the guidance will switch to trans-exclusion as a default.

In other words, what @TheOtherRaven said! Wish I'd read before I posted....

Biology is sooo inconvenient!

Sex is not binary because a significant minority of people have chromosomal differences. For example people with Turner's syndrome have only one X chromosome (XO). They are female in terms of how they look but are infertile and have other differences. Again, some of us are XYY, XXY and other differences exist.

The commonest chromosomal arrangements are, of course, XX and XY which suits the Supreme Court. But what of the others? What is their legal status now?

The law is an ass!

Joking apart, this is a serious matter. It cannot be that legally some people simply do not exist when they do in reality. I don't know how the SC overlooked it but it is probable that it was missed by the legal teams in this case. Lawyers are not necessarily informed of biology.

The point raised here is not a matter of opinion. It is fact. Oh dear, back to the drawing board........

More nonsense from TheMedusa.

People witb DSDs are either male or female.

Let's take Turner syndrome, since the poster mentions it, albeit slightly misspelt.

This is what the NHS says:
"Turner syndrome is a female-only genetic disorder that affects about 1 in every 2,000 baby girls."
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/turner-syndrome/

A female-only genetic disorder.

I think the fact is that sex is not just determined by our chromosomes but a few different biological markers. People with chromosomal differences are still recognised as being either female or males (with chromosomal abnormalities). It’s a fact that there is no third sex.

Not nonsense. What the NHS says is relevant but not necessarily the last word on the subject. Whether a condition is or is not a 'disorder' is as much fashion as anything else. Homosexuality is not seen as a disorder in the UK but until recently it was. It is still seen that way in other jurisdictions.

As to whether it is Turner syndrome or Turner's is a semantic argument and not useful when both parties know what is meant. Neither is there any misspelling: Turner is a name and Turner's speaks to that.

If someone comments on Mumsnet they must be prepared to cope with rudeness. 'More nonsense from Themedusa' is certainly rude. This writer sees no value in abuse and seeks to avoid it.

Women with Turner syndrome are female. People with DSDs in the U.K. are clinically assessed as to whether they are female or male. You’re making up a problem which doesn’t exist.

Why do passports need to include details of someone's sex (or gender) at all?

first name - family name - date of birth - photo - passport number - nationality (that goes with that passport) seems sufficient info for border control purposes.

I know that feminists back in the 1970s campaigned for passports not to have an F or M marker at all. This is something both 'gender-critical feminists' and 'trans rights activists' might actually have been able to reach consensus on, if only they'd listened to each other...

I don't think the judgement missed this, and it was the third separate, extensive, full case on the legal meaning of terms in the equality act. As explained: repeatedly in the judgement, unless woman and man are based on the fixed points of two biological sexes, the law is an incomprehensible mess for everyone. Hence the decision taken.

Also, passports are subject to a tightly-defined standard of the International Civil Aviation Organization, and there is a field called Sex which allows for three values only - M, F and X (unspecified).

Countries have little to no leeway to add their own fields for special attributes like gender identity, religion, star sign, favourite football team.

I like your framing of what identity used to mean, Timefortulips!

Didn’t the judge include sex is binary yesterday?

That’s it then. We are women or men and now we know who women includes.

We unravel all the lies now and society will have to move on from this damaging phase.

The male sex class will need to be more supportive.