Have I completely misunderstood GCSE biology...

[proximalhumerous]

...or is the purpose of spotting an anomaly not specifically to disregard it in order that it doesn't lead to an inaccurate conclusion?

If so, why is everyone fixating on DSDs as "proof" that sex is a spectrum, when the anomalous 1.7% (if indeed it is as high as that - from what I've read that figure is only achieved if you include conditions such as PCOS which have a tenuous claim at best to be one of the "intersex" variations) is clearly a set of results that don't fit. Because something has deviated from the norm. It's not like calculating the mean of a range of heights, FFS.

Please can someone more scientific than me explain what is going on here? Or is it simply that certain factions are so hell-bent on arguing that anyone with ladyfeels can be a woman they're happy to completely disregard any sort of science or logic in order to do so?

Yes, gender is different to sex.

Sex is real, gender is completely made up.

Why should our sex based rights be trumped by other people's quasi-religious beliefs?

Complaining that your sex doesn't match your gender is like complaining that your star sign doesn't match your favourite colour.

You do realise that it is much harder for a man to pretend to be a trans man than it is for him to claim to be a trans woman, right?

Nobody has ever had a sex change, that is a completely non existent procedure.

I really would suggest reading the judgment. No, they really can't, this is quite clearly established.

And you and Mr Maugham really need to understand that a woman who has been through the surgery to create the facsimile of a male body seriously will not be indistinguishable from a man.

The bottom line is that having a trans identity/status is dependent on knowing one’s sex. If one was uncertain, they could not determine whether their gender identity aligns with it or not.

If sex really is complicated, doesn’t this throw the concept of trans identities into question?

If they are biologically male they can't legally do this. Before the ruling they thought they could. It is simple, and happened most of my life. And even recently when men have accidentally gone in the ladies, as soon as they realised their mistake had an embarrassed smile and apology and made their way out sharpish.

lol of course they can’t but you believe that the Supreme Court confirming women’s legal rights is somehow a bad thing if it makes you feel better

I think trans people know they are not ever going to be biologically their chosen sex.

What matters to them is being able to be the person they wish to be, and use the toilet just like everyone else. My sister in law was born male, but now she looks female. She has had numerous surgeries. With this ruling, she would have to go into a male bathroom despite looking like a woman.

I don't feel threatened by trans people, and I'm sorry you do.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I think it’s helpful to point out that it isn’t illegal for a male to use a female only provision (whether they are trans or not). It is the responsibility of the service provider to deliver single sex provision where they claim it is single sex (and where there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to provide it).

Therefore, providers could be sued for permitting males with trans identities into provision that is for females only.

I don't feel good about my rights being used as a sledgehammer to make things harder for trans people, no.

There is no magic forcefield stopping men from walking into a woman's bathroom with nefarious intent.

There is no way of forcing people to expose their genitals before being allowed into a single-sex space.

So what was the point of the law then, I wonder? How would it be enforced? Or was it just performative politics? Nah, surely not.

Men! We feel threatened by men! Men however they present, no matter how nice their dress or make up don’t belong in women’s spaces!

for the bazillionth time we don’t make laws based on peoples ‘really nice’ trans relatives

and honestly men couldn’t give a fuck about TW in their toilets

What about what matters to women?

Why are you behaving as though what trans people want is the only thing that matters?

You don't get to consent to women's spaces being made mixed sex on behalf of the rest of us. You can decide what your boundaries are, not what ours are.

Bathrooms, bathrooms - in the UK we have toilets, public toilets. Bathrooms are in peoples homes

so what you’re saying is men can’t be trusted to do the right thing so we should what?? Just not bother with single sex spaces? And where will your sister in law get their validation then?

This is the same argument as

Robbers exist so why bother locking your front door as they will get in if they want to

The difference is before women couldn't challenge men in women's spaces as they may have a pink brain and we aren't allowed to upset their lady feelz. Now we can and the law is on our side

We can tell whether someone is male or not just by looking at them. No genital inspections necessary.

Yes, including your "sister in law".

Because there are 2 sexes and it is not possible to change sex, a biological female can of course use spaces designated as for single sex use by females. They always could. The SC judgment changed nothing, but simply clarified what the law always said. The threat to women from transmen, ie other females, is nowhere near as high as the threat to women from transwomen, ie males.
That is because males are, at population level, bigger, stronger, faster, more violent and more criminal than females. They remain so however they identify.
The law is the same as it was and nothing has backfired.

Thank you for this. I also saw this article, which is well written:
www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/what-are-sexes

The difference is if a trans person has changed their body, appearance, name, lifestyle, everything because they want to live as a woman then as far as I'm concerned they're welcome in a womans bathroom.

The thing is they just want to wee. You probably won't be able to spot them either. And you're certainly not in any danger by them being in there. Unless you have evidence to the contrary? Say, a long list of attacks?

And yet there are a few cases in the news recently of biological women being refused entry to female spaces because they were accused of being born a man.

But as far as we are concerned, and as far as the law is concerned, they're not.

I don't care what they want. The world does not revolve around them and there are more important things than what they want.

There are toilets for members of their own sex. If they just want to wee, they can use those. If they want to wee in women's toilets next to unconsenting women because it makes them feel more womanly, well, tough shit, it's not our job to validate their identity.

And damn right their presence puts me in danger. Ever heard of Katie Dolatowski?

Do you think we were born yesterday?

Just to be clear, you'll be happy with what the image is saying?

You are talking about trans women who were probably effeminate boys and try to blend in

This individual is also a trans woman and under your transwomen are women and are welcome to get changed in the same changing room as me banner. How comfortable would you really be getting changed for swimming in front of her? Be honest with yourself. (The image is of kayla lemieux while waiting for photo to be approved)

If you're unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion please just say so.

I’m a biological scientist. Sex is immutable and binary because that is what is needed to fulfil every species’ prime directive, which is to procreate. But no biological system is perfect and so there are always, always anomalies, most of which lead to infertility because they don’t further the species. DSDs are not the norm and are always associated with male or female, and it’s not bigoted or hateful to say so. This is just biology and in biological terms, humans are not different or special or above any other species, as much as some people might like to think so.