Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Lady Hale "no such thing as biological sex"

125 replies

BinBadger · 23/05/2025 07:37

"The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said. "

In the Grain today

Apparently her daughter said,

“The idea that the trigger for all of this case was whether trans women should represent women in the representation of women on boards, I find heartbreaking.”

She said she would love to have “a talented trans woman sitting on a board of mine”.

Just, why?!

Court ruling on legal definition of a woman ‘misinterpreted’, Lady Hale says

Speaking at book festival in east Sussex, former supreme court president says reaction to judgment ‘very binary’

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-definition-of-a-woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale

OP posts:
Mistyglade · 23/05/2025 12:27

Calliopespa · 23/05/2025 12:20

I haven’t had a problem with any of it🤷🏻‍♀️

Oh it’s just on my first post you corrected me then you questioned why I thought the image was horrible. Glad you’re ok with it now.

PetaltotheMedal · 23/05/2025 12:28

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 23/05/2025 12:26

Please don’t, it’s abhorrent.

I agree, but I'm hoping to show why it is something people should have a problem with.

NPET · 23/05/2025 12:28

Um...
Excuse me while I check -
Yes I have 3 "holes" down there 🔽 and nothing hanging aimlessly between my legs.
I think that's human biology.

Calliopespa · 23/05/2025 12:29

Mistyglade · 23/05/2025 12:27

Oh it’s just on my first post you corrected me then you questioned why I thought the image was horrible. Glad you’re ok with it now.

im sorry you’ve lost me. But happy to leave it there.

Im not making any gender statements with it whatsoever. It was just an anecdote linked to babies - no correcting intended.

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 23/05/2025 12:32

Calliopespa · 23/05/2025 12:27

No it was just an aside which is why I said I didn’t want to disrupt the discussion.

I’ve seen a couple of little babies do this and wasn’t making any gender related contribution: it was just your post reminded me of it.

To be honest I thought it was quite cute and resourceful of a hungry baby - like @MissScarletInTheBallroom’s dd and the door lock! Necessity is the mother of invention and all that…

But no, it was not an entry into a gender debate. The dad was a man and the door lock I’m assuming was a door lock.

@Calliopespa I think you’ve quoted me by mistake!

Calliopespa · 23/05/2025 12:35

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 23/05/2025 12:32

@Calliopespa I think you’ve quoted me by mistake!

Oops sorry! Think I’ll just quietly leave this thread! I’m feeling like I’m getting in the way of things!

OneQuirkyPanda · 23/05/2025 12:36

It’s interesting that first they said gender was something entirely different to sex as a way to explain how men could actually be women, that hasn’t worked, so now they’re trying to erase sex completely.

I saw a post on instagram where a woman criticised Lorde for discussing ovulation and the contraceptive pill as apparently this is promoting bioessentialism and excludes trans women.

So to conclude women are not allowed to discuss our bodily functions any more as it upsets men.

If you go so far left you eventually go full circle and become right wing without realising it.

BoeotianNightmare · 23/05/2025 12:36

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 10:11

How has scientific illiteracy somehow become a badge of honour? It's so depressing.

The universities have so much culpability here. Disciplines like social sciences have their place, but we need to start facing up to how much total bilge is being taught in the name of 'gender studies' .

And the hard sciences need to start standing up for themselves. Their reputation will be in tatters soon also if they don't man up.

A very good point. But why would anyone want to apply their brain to hard things like physics, maths or biology where there are right and wrong answers you have to learn, rather than arse about with vague wafty crap in the social sciences?

SinnerBoy · 23/05/2025 12:47

Because there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.”

I wonder what on Earth prompted that non sequitur? Nobody has suggested that at all.

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 12:48

HermioneWeasley · 23/05/2025 11:41

What is it about this particular ideology which makes clever people, and let’s not doubt that Lady Hale in all other aspects is both clever and educated, so willing to be so performatively stupid?

she’s far from the only one who has taken great delight in making themselves look utterly, bafflingly stupid on this issue only.

I think you can be well educated/articulate without being particularly good at critical thinking.

So there's a class of people who are very trusting of what 'authority' is telling them and not great at using their own brain to question what they're being told.

This ideology is associated with high status societal markers. The universities, left leaning media, even (god help us) the healthcare sector. It's cloaked in the language of 'progressive' morality, inclusion, kindness, self expression.

It's also total bollocks and immensely harmful to women and vulnerable young people. But a lot of people haven't properly grasped that yet or simply don't care.

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 12:52

BoeotianNightmare · 23/05/2025 12:36

A very good point. But why would anyone want to apply their brain to hard things like physics, maths or biology where there are right and wrong answers you have to learn, rather than arse about with vague wafty crap in the social sciences?

This is indeed the problem
of our age.

If I ruled the world, I'd be tempted to just burn the whole university sector down and start again.

HermioneWeasley · 23/05/2025 12:53

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/05/2025 12:11

I think it's because they attach so much importance to being clever that their cleverness becomes a weakness.

Imagine you were always top of the class at school. You weren't the sporty one, you weren't the cool one, you were the brainy one. Your superpower was understanding things that were too complicated for most other people to understand. And then you left school and went to university and continued to collect qualifications until you eventually entered your chosen field and excelled at it.

Let's say your chosen field is law, you have a PhD in constitutional law, you became a barrister and then a silk and are now a judge.

Being clever is your identity.

And you frequently come into contact with people, often members of the public with no expertise in your field, who nonetheless have strong opinions about things like the death penalty, or human rights, or jury trials, and are quite happy to publicly disagree with you and say you are wrong.

You find it easy to dismiss these people as thickos who have no idea what they are talking about. If only they were clever and educated like you, they would have the same opinions as you.

Then along comes a doctor who prescribes puberty blockers to children, or someone like Sally Hines with her PhD in gender studies.

And they confidently inform you that anyone who thinks that a man is someone with a penis and a woman is someone with a vagina is just a thicko, who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.

You don't understand the difference between sex and gender either, but you don't want to admit it, because that would make you a thicko and there is nothing worse than being a thicko.

And you're certainly not going to say, "Well that sounds like total horse crap to me, Sally, and just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you're not a complete fricking idiot."

Because you have a lot of respect for qualifications, you attach an enormous amount of value to your own, and you have a PhD yourself. So obviously you are personally invested in it not being possible for someone with a PhD to be a complete fricking idiot, because that would mean that you also might be a complete fricking idiot, which is unthinkable.

And, you know, you're a legal expert. You're not a doctor or a professor of gender studies. These are Helen Webberley and Sally Hines' fields of expertise, not yours. And if they have that expertise and they are telling you that humans can change sex and that woman is just an identity, who are you to argue? You don't want to be like those ignorant fools who think their opinions about constitutional law are as valid as yours.

And you can see that, on the whole, you have people with degrees and titles and impressive sounding jobs saying that trans women are women, whereas it tends to be people who are a bit, well, Brexity, who say otherwise. OK there are a couple of outliers like JK Rowling, but at the end of the day she just wrote some books for children about wizards, so she's not really an expert, is she?

You know which side you want to be on. Even if you don't fully understand it, you're happy to defer to the expertise of doctors who have dedicated their careers to gender affirming care and academics who specialise in gender studies.

Because they must be right...right?

That’s a brilliant explanation

sallymilkins71 · 23/05/2025 13:02

This reply has been deleted

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

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 13:03

Ultimately the problem goes back to the universities enabling bullshit merchants like Sally Hines, while those who actually know what they're talking about are intimidated into silence.

But the universities can't admit that some of their so-called 'disciplines' are based on shaky (or non existent) foundations.

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 13:08

Personally I have no problem at all with people feeling their 'gender identity' is important to them. Knock yourself out with your aerogender status if that makes you happy.

So long as we totally clamp down on any attempts to use gender identity as a Trojan horse / bait and switch technique to access sex related rights.

Merrymouse · 23/05/2025 13:15

I suspect the reality is that neither have thought much about the issue but they were put on the spot so attempted to flannel inoffensively.

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 13:29

It's a very big (dumb) statement to make if you haven't given it any thought though. Surely there was something blander she could have said if she wanted to be inoffensive?

JulesJules · 23/05/2025 13:37

Absolutely ALL THIS.

What a disappointment she is. Unable to see out of her own incredibly privileged bubble. Ugh.

Dennis Kavanagh absolutely nails it in his twitter thread, posted above.

thestudio · 23/05/2025 13:39

I agree with @MissScarletInTheBallroom - but cleverness is very much a class issue. The Guardian is run by a particular category of urbane Oxbridge liberal for whom this kind of performative progressiveness functions in the same way that it did for the Bloomsbury group - as a very particular and specific marker of a class within a class.

In that class, it's perfectly possible for a Guardian editor to have been to school or university with a member of a Tory government and for there to be great warmth between the two, with no sense at all between any of them that they are on 'different sides'. Because they're not - none of them hold any deep ideological beliefs, they are all just expressing class markers.

SO much of this debate in particular boils down to class.

I believe it was the CEO of this very site who once said that considered herself to be less oppressed than a transwoman. Possibly true - because she is less oppressed than 99.99% of the national population.

These women will never be or have girls who are in care, refuges, prisons - for them, a power structure is a theoretical object.

As an aside - I've often been astounded by the incredibly narrow life experiences of this group of people who run the country in one way or another, relative to the breadth of their education. It's a truism that privilege protects them from the worst, but they are also often shockingly naive about just ... basic things. They have all had the same lives with minor variations (which shade of volunteering you did on your gap year). And there's that weird upper middle/boarding school bawdy attitude to sex, for example - and a sort of fundamental naffness and lack of sophistication which is always quite jarring in their humour. But they speak so confidently, ploughing forward with their opinions, that this stuff often fails to register. So few people ever say 'hold on, what the fuck do you know about it?'

Sleepthief · 23/05/2025 13:51

HermioneWeasley · 23/05/2025 11:41

What is it about this particular ideology which makes clever people, and let’s not doubt that Lady Hale in all other aspects is both clever and educated, so willing to be so performatively stupid?

she’s far from the only one who has taken great delight in making themselves look utterly, bafflingly stupid on this issue only.

A friend has an apt saying: we’re too warm and well-fed. The gender ideology/transactivism phenomenon screams ‘fall of the Roman Empire’ to me.

Katkins17 · 23/05/2025 13:52

she would love to have “a talented trans woman sitting on a board of mine”.

so a man ???

brcause there’s never enough men on these boards are there .!!!

The stupidity and virtue signalling is just astounding.

27pilates · 23/05/2025 14:05

Bunderella · 23/05/2025 07:42

Thick as mince this one

Worryingly, she is the opposite.

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 23/05/2025 14:14

JasmineAllen · 23/05/2025 10:08

Lady Hale is welcome to believe what she likes, it doesn't make it correct. I'm more concerned about her quote:

“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said.

I can only hope she's referring to PhD doctors rather than medical doctors because no one (not even Lady Hale) wants to be treated by a Dr who doesn't know the difference between the male and female sex and how that difference impacts care, medication, disease diagnosis and treatment outcome.

Oh all doctors of all flavours know the difference between male and female. Four year old children do too.

Unfortunately we have some prominent vocal people in the world who insist for whatever weird reason or agenda they may have on telling the world that men can be women and women can be men. This is particularly unfortunate for vulnerable young children and people who believe them.

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 23/05/2025 14:20

Mistyglade · 23/05/2025 10:28

My day old son knew what a biological woman was when he latched on to my breast to feed rather than his dad’s chest.

How a so called intelligent woman sitting in the House of Lords struggles with the most basic concept on the planet is beyond me. Perhaps she needs to see a mental health professional.

Edited

Exactly

TheHereticalOne · 23/05/2025 14:35

SinnerBoy · 23/05/2025 12:47

Because there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.”

I wonder what on Earth prompted that non sequitur? Nobody has suggested that at all.

I suspect this is a reference to a slightly garbled version of a point made by some commentators that goes:

**

There may be circumstances in which having only a mixed sex facility will constitute indirect discrimination against women. i.e. it's a policy that applies to both sexes equally on its face but in practice actually disadvantages women as compared to men.

**

It's a perfectly reasonable point to suggest businesses etc. consider and I can't imagine that Lady Hale would actually have anything to say against it as a legal point. Either she or someone she has spoken to (perhaps one of those doctors who think they're is no such thing as biological sex...) seems to have tweaked it into a strawman that can be dismissively laughed off.

The "no such thing as biological sex" comment cannot possibly have been given more than half a second's thought before being regurgitated by her. As posters have put so beautifully, there seems to be a conflation between definition and determination (neither of which are actually terribly complicated in practice even if unusual factors are present) or a strange and irrelevant appeal to secondary sex characteristics.

There is a fundamental failure to consider first principles of sexual reproduction (all species) and work logically up from there that really should embarrass Lady Hale.