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.

Yes, it is imperative now to prise apart and clearly distinguish the differences between 'Sex' and the concept of 'Gender'. Sex is now established to be biological and a woman is an adult human female.There has been much mission creep to the extent that transitioning males now suggest they have become not just women, but female. This is an impossibility. If Stonewall had managed to achieve their goal, they would have replaced the category of 'Sex' altogether, to be replaced entirely with 'Gender/Gender identity'

Transwomen are male people who have adopted a feminine persona, and Transmen are women who have adopted a masculine persona. These personas are their gendered 'identities' - on which, it seems, an inordinate amount of time, energy and effort is spent - trying to control the narrative, as well as other people's responses.

Sex Matters have been ‘all over’ the recent consultation about data/recording. Yesterday, in one of her interviews, Maya F was talking about the significance of the upcoming bill for upholding the SC’s ruling.

We need the EHRC to produce guidance about what a GRC does/does mean for holders.

We also need to argue for legal processes for determining access rights to single sex provision. The ‘genital policing’ argument is ridiculous, and ‘in the moment policing’ isn’t appropriate or needed (as with no-one checking you have a driving licence before driving a car).

The first step has been achieved - clarity of who is/isn’t entitled to access single sex provision. The next step is to clarify what evidence can be used to prove ones innocence if wrongly accused. If a driver is questioned over their licence, they are given a set number of days within which they need to present the licence. If a service provider has concerns about sex based eligibility, there needs to be a process for clarifying this. There needs to be a record for natal sex.

The social (and possible legal) contract for using single sex provision needs to be that in using them you are declaring and disclosing your natal sex.

"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."

That was the point I was making. Seen from here the law is an incomprehensible mess and the judgement of the SC adds another to what already exists.

It will suit some to say that the judgement is good and others that it's bad. Many will feel it has little relevance to their lives and an unfortunate few that their lives will be harder still now.

To borrow from Andersen's tale, the emperor still has no clothes but that's no laughing matter and it clearly isn't academic because there is and will be fallout from this judgement. Many have strong opinions which may be justified by appeal to this authority or that, which might not be useful in debate.

You can't easily legislate and find common consent in an area which is anything but clear just now. Genetics, genomics and now epigenetics are rapidly developing fields in biology. Science is ahead of social change and there are no certainties in it, to the discomfiture of many. Imagine a world in which we could change our sex at will. It may yet happen.

Neither sex nor gender are the most important things about us, perhaps?

In the creation story, my sympathies mostly go to the serpent.

Everyone is entitled to access single sex provision that matches their biological sex.

This is not difficult.

I don't think the serpent or the creation story was mentioned in the judgement of the supreme court on which policy will now be based.

Mate, we are a sexually dimorphic species just like any other mammal. There is no evolving science that is going to change that. Dress it up anyway you want but men do not belong in spaces where women are vulnerable and this whole movement was about trying to force their way in. There is nothing the least bit confusing or controversial about the Supreme Court judgement. Deal with it.

As everyone is saying here, it’s got so muddled it’s now very hard to tease apart how this will make any difference as it’s all so inconsistent. My best male friend is 5’3 with a boyish voice and could easily be thought to be a trans man — if he turns up somewhere and says I want to be in this group, I’m a trans man, I.e. a woman, what’s stopping him?

Hopefully his ethics.

Imagine….I can imagine all sorts of things.
well fortunately we don’t write our laws based on science fiction.

In his case, yes, but can’t you see some men wanting to get their jollies this way?

we’re all too aware of men getting their jollies by invading women’s spaces, unfortunately. Afaik it’s typically not the ones who are naturally less conventionally masculine looking.
The clarification of the law will help, it makes the situation much less muddled than before.

Yes. That's how we've ended up here in the first place.

Fortunately, we now no longer have to pretend that we can't see what they are doing and can have them removed.

It's not a new problem, is it? It's always been the case that a small, slightly-built man with delicate features could have a decent-ish chance of disguising himself as a woman if he so chose. You seem to be arguing "what's the point of having a rule, if some people will have the opportunity and the motive to break it?".

I’m not saying that, I’m just saying I think this new ruling just makes things even more contradictory than they already were.

Then possibly re read the judgement. It really doesn't. It explains very clearly and repeatedly why the only way the EqA works for all is if it is based on binary sex.

Yes, and unfortunately we now have no definition of this legally because, as detailed above, people who have transitioned have birth certificates saying they are the other sex.

Those birth certificates are not reflective of their actual sex. Which is what would be considered under the act. The judgement isn't hard to follow.