"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 2

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

The last thread ended with Tandora attempting to sidestep the question about what she would say if her daughter had been raped by a trans woman in a female only space and no longer believed that trans women should be in female only spaces as a consequence.

Her last reply was along the lines of, "The same thing I would say if she had been bullied by a green person at school and said she no longer wanted to go to school with green people."

@Tandora can we have a serious answer?

SA was raised by another poster in relation to DU comments on the stand.

My argument is that it is absolutely not necessary for you to make personal "observations" about DU's body/ identity in order for you to protect your boundaries about your medical care.

In terms of 'maintaining the myth that everyone thinks DU is female' - I have no doubt that DU is acutely, painfully aware that there are people who don't accept her as female. She just doesn't need to be confronted with other people's opinions about her person while she is at work. It's not necessary.

This is like when Star Wars fans talk about Midichlorians ( microscopic life forms that exist within the cells of all living things) as if they are real.

She just doesn't need to be confronted with other people's opinions about her person while she is at work. It's not necessary.

Dr Upton is a doctor. Their sex will be important most day because for lots of patients the sex of their doctor will be important.

It's unavoidable.

I think that Minor Attracted Adults often fully believe that the minor they are in a relationship with is consenting and able to consent

It's irrelevant whether paedophilias believe children are able to consent to sex. Children are not able to consent either factually or in law. Having sex with a child is a criminal offence.

I cannot understand why you are comparing trans people to paedophiles.

You make claims about Dr Upton and the fictitious patient as though that patient can simply say No.

All doctors are required to establish patient consent before they undertake medical procedures, especially intimate ones.

If DU is not establishing this consent then she is breaking the law and committing sexual assault.

There is no evidence whatsoever that DU has done this and there is no such accusation against her. Such accusations have no bearing on the tribunal currently happening, in which she is involved as a witness.

You are trying to make a claim that simply because DU is a doctor, who understands herself to be female and therefore understands herself eligible to treat patients who have requested female care, she is automatically guilty of sexual assault. That is wholly unreasonable.

I believe SP will win her case. I think this is a terrible injustice.

A terrible injustice that a woman refused to remove her clothes in front of a male in order to validate that male's view of himself that he is female, that is the crux of it for you, isn't it? Women should have no agency, no boundaries, no right of consent. Repellent.

No I do not think SP was required to remove her clothes in front of DU.

where the defendant, a doctor, targeted, harassed, lied about and then FALSIFIED EVIDENCE about is an injustice

I do not accept in any way shape or form your characterisation of what happened here as bearing any relationship to the real events of this case.

Of course she was, he was in the the changing room which is used for the removal of clothes. You are making yourself look incredibly silly.

You are trying to make a claim that simply because DU is a doctor, who understands herself to be female and therefore eligible to treat patients who have requested female care, she is automatically guilty of sexual assault. That is wholly unreasonable. And very transphobic.

You can appreciate that we all can't have our own definition of 'female' and the single sex exceptions to operate successfully?

What would the point of SSE? How would organisations determine that SSE are proportional, if sex is just what anyone understands it to be?

Nobody required SP to remove her clothes while DU was in the room.

I understand you want to make me feel silly and portray me as silly.

I don't feel silly at all.

I will continue to share what I know to be true and just.

Would a TW be happy if the hospital said 'use the men's changing rooms, by our definition everyone in there is a woman'?

For understanding provisions in law, we need to agree what the words in statutes mean.

The SC has clarified that for understanding the applications of protections and exemptions to the protected characteristic of sex in the EA 2010 the word sex refers to 'biological sex', by which they simply mean sex 'at birth'.

The EA 2010 (and therefore the SC judgement) has nothing to do with criminal law governing medical consent and sexual assault. It also does not say how the word 'female' should be understood and used broadly in society.

You want to insist that everyone uses/ understands your exclusive/ dogmatic definition of 'female', but in reality they don't, because lots of us know that being 'female' is not just one thing. As with 'sex', 'female' is not a single, objective, fixed measure, but a multi-variate, complex, process of development.

I do not accept in any way shape or form your characterisation of what happened here as bearing any relationship to the real events of this case.

You would say that wouldn't you.

You may well be happy to remove your clothes in front of any male who claims they are a woman, other women are not and to attempt to coerce or force them to do so as you and Dr Upton want them to is abhorrent.

Waiting outside the changing room for Dr Upton to leave before Sandie Peggie used it was unacceptable to |Dr Upton, removing herself when Dr Upton entered was deemed unacceptable to Dr Upton which leaves the only action acceptable to Dr Upton was for Sandie to remove her clothes in front of him and you appearr to agree. You are advocating for the removal of boundaries and consent from women and girls.

Other than in the context of the now largely redundant Gender Recognition Act, female does just mean one thing. It means the same thing in humans as it does in all other mammals.

other women are not and to attempt to coerce or force them to do so as you and Dr Upton want them to is abhorrent

No one is suggesting coercing or forcing any woman to remove any of her clothes, without her consent, in any context, regardless of who is or isn't present.

Neither me, nor DU, nor any person who is not a sexually violent criminal, is advocating for this.

This is entirely your own projection.

As with 'sex', 'female' is not a single, objective, fixed measure, but a multi-variate, complex, process of development.

You are confusing sex determination (male/female, dependent on presence or absence of SRY gene) with sex differentiation, which is the subsequent development of the specific male or female characteristics.

The EA 2010 (and therefore the SC judgement) has nothing to do with criminal law governing medical consent and sexual assault. It also does not say how the word 'female' should be understood and used broadly in society.

Akua Reindorf believes it will be a low bar to have the SC definition accepted into any legislation where sex matters.

No idea what any of this means.

This is entirely your own projection.

No, it is exactly what you are advocating for no matter how you try to hide it in word salad and obfuscation.

Why was Dr Upton aggrieved that Sandie would not enter the changing room whilst he was in there? Why was her waiting outside a problem for him? You and Dr Upton both think she should be in the changing room in his prescence changing.

That's ok Tandora. I'm not really talking to you. I am talking to the lurkers, present and future.

If you are trying to present as something you are not, and have expectations that people will go along with your own imagining, then it is inevitable that people will at some point cross you. It goes with the territory....and why such a concerted effort is made to force people to comply and to ignore their own voice.

DU would have no reason to think that a patient requesting a female doctor would object to her

I have no doubt that DU is acutely, painfully aware that there are people who don't accept her as female.

So you acknowledge that DU does have reason to think that a patient requesting a female Dr would object to them.

The provision of single-sex care is allowable under the Equality Act. The relevant characteristic is sex. DU’s sex, in relation to the EA, is male. It’s also the reason that DU knows that there are people who “don’t accept her as female”.

The reality of a trans person’s sex is also the reason why some transmen decide to get pregnant. Because they know that, ultimately, they are female and their female body allows them to carry a child.

When you knowingly claim something that goes against commonly understood reality you need to be aware that you are doing so...and you need to take into consideration that other people do not perceive you in the way you do yourself.

The world and the workplace is not a digital fantasy which you can manipulate to your desires and have characters behave in the way you choose. Other people have objective reality and they have agency, rights and protections too.

it really is not all about you.

If you are trying to present as something you are not

This is your belief about what they are doing, because you don't understand or accept what it is to be trans.

Actually trans people are not 'trying to present as something they are not', they are simply trying to be their authentic selves, and live their lives in a manner that is tolerable for them.
The only expectations they have of others is to let them be allowed to do this (live their lives in a manner that is authentic and tolerable for them) and continue to participate in society whilst doing so.

So you acknowledge that DU does have reason to think that a patient requesting a female Dr would object to them

She would have no reason to assume that the person she was treating was part of the cohort of society that holds gender critical beliefs, unless they told her so.

I do not accept that it is reasonable to require her to continue her practice on the assumption that everyone does hold these beliefs, unless stated otherwise, or to have to 'out' herself as a trans woman to all her patients in order to clarify.

As much as DU must be acutely aware that there are some people in society that don't accept her, I also highly doubt she lives her life based on the presumption that this applies to most people, nor do I believe this reflects her day to day experience in most of her interactions with people, colleagues, patients, etc. If she did life would be pretty intolerable for her.

I will agree that if she knew a patient had requested female care and that they held gender critical beliefs, she should not attempt to treat that patient.

People being transgender isn’t the same as people being the opposite sex

if you can’t understand the difference then you can’t understand how people can be accepting of transgender whilst still not accepting that you are the opposite sex

for people who have experienced lots of sex based abuse it’s very hurtful to be told that transgender means opposite sex because sex based abuse isn’t to do with your gender but your sex

it doesn’t matter how male I felt as a child and young adult - it didn’t stop the sexual abuse - that’s how I learnt to distinguish sex from gender so clearly