Definition of "woman" / implications for people with DSDs

[proximalhumerous]

Two points, but I didn't want to start two threads as there are already several.

Am I being stupid / obtuse / disingenuous / unreasonable to wonder how the recent judgment could possibly have gone any other way in a sane society? I mean how can the definition of "x" be something that started off as "y" and changed artificially (as opposed to organically) to become "x"? That would be totally illogical, surely?

Additionally, can anyone point me towards any credible sources to explain how this ruling is likely to affect people with DSDs? Understandably, a lot of self-described* intersex people believe that sex is a spectrum, but given the SC disagrees with this, what are the implications?

*When I say self-described I mean that they use this term rather than "DSD" to describe themselves, not that they merely identify as intersex without any medical diagnosis.

I read that Turner's doesn't count as intersex, but it would definitely be a disorder of sexual development if it causes infertility.

Thanks, that is good to know.

It is also worth remembering ‘sex’ and ‘male’ and ‘female’ are stable categories across all animal and plant species. It is defined purely by gametes (large immotile vs small mobile). It is the only commonality between a female human and a female courgette plant. And even hermaphrodites still only have two sex components - there is no spectrum of gametes.

World Athletics only cares about some DSDs - so where e.g. external organs don’t develop normally but an individual still goes through male puberty. They wouldn’t include a DSD like CAIS in that group.

The process is to first test for karotype using a cheek swab and then do further tests.

The cheek swab won’t in itself establish that an athlete can’t participate in female competition.

I can't offer anything on DSDs, but I would say I've noticed some trans people recently describing themselves as having been born with a 'hormonal disorder'.

What they mean is that they think they were born the 'wrong' sex.

So apparently "...there simply isn't any clarity. Nobody could possibly tell people what is the case now (though some people might try). The EHRC will issue new guidance over time, but that will only be a reflection of their interpretation of national law, which will probably be challenged and might not be what the law is.

...a friend works in the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights). She said that their view is clear in Brussels and Straßburg that the Supreme Court ruling contradicts the ECtHR case law (esp. Goodwin vs. UK), which means that the UK is in breach of its human rights obligations. This makes it impossible to have any consistent rules within the UK right now as the national ruling is jointly inconsistent with superceding [sic] international law. The ruling made it impossible to have consistent legal guidlines. [sic]"

Any thoughts?

The judgement hasn’t changed the law.

The case law related to right to marriage (no longer relevant) and right to privacy (not an absolute right, already clearly limited by GRA eg re: legal status as parent, participation in sport).

It is still possible to obtain a GRC, but even the ECHR cannot enable individuals to change sex. The ECHR also has rules that protect women from direct and indirect sex discrimination.

There is no human right to have a gender identity affirmed.

Re the question about the difference between a genetic test and a karyotype test.

A karyotype test looks at the whole chromosomes - the number, the types and the sizes. The technology to do this was developed long before it was possible to examine the details of the DNA closely enough to see individual genes.

A karyotype test can show whether someone has a 'whole chromosome' problem, such as one being missing or duplicated (this includes things like Downs, not just ones affecting the sex chromosomes), and how many X and Y chromosomes someone has. And it can give some indication of smaller-scale genetic problems - if a chromosome is larger or smaller than normal you would reasonably suspect that some genes are missing or duplicated, but it can't tell you which genes.

These days it's possible to actually sequence the DNA and look at individual genes, which gives far more detail.

And as for numbers of trans people who also have intersex conditions, the Tavistock used to test everyone referred to their gender service because there was a theory that it could be a causal factor. They gave up, because they found the incidence in the trans population was identical to that in the general population.

Hypospadias is a misplaced urethral opening on the penis (it may be slightly off centre, or on the shaft) but there’s little doubt what sex the sufferer is.

There’s also this: I believe this has become a lot commoner since it was first diagnosed.

www.researchgate.net/publication/254365507_Pretense_of_a_Paradox_Factitious_Intersex_Conditions_on_the_Internet

Exactly. However this (heterosexual, married, fertile, unmistakably post-pubescent male) individual is one of the most vocal about being intersex, not being "normal", and about sex not being binary. It feels a bit like someone who's lost a toenail jumping on the bandwagon for people who have had both legs amputated. Maybe that's unfair, but the virtue signalling is off the scale with this person (who also claims to be a feminist).