Europe must not erase sex - We must resist the imposition of activist fantasies

[IwantToRetire]

When, in mid-October, MPs from the broad left-wing bloc Nouveau Front Populaire tabled a proposal in the French Parliament to remove sex from national identity cards, they prefaced it with an explanation: having one’s sex recorded on identity documents, they claimed, is bad for equality, bad for women, and especially bad for those who identify as transgender. “It is common for an individual’s appearance not to correspond to the stereotypes associated with the sex recorded on their official papers,” they argued, followed by a non sequitur of the highest order: that sex itself is an outdated stereotype.

Feminist discussion groups exploded. One woman asked, “What happened to the French? Have they gone mad?” Truth be told, the same question could be asked of many nations today: have the Irish, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans and others gone mad? And if they have not, what explains why legislators across so many states are suddenly deciding that biological sex — not only a basic fact of human reproduction but a cornerstone of equality and non-discrimination law — is a relic of the past to be discarded like phrenology or geocentrism?

The almost 70 left-wing MPs who backed the proposal in the French National Assembly also claimed that, unlike a person’s height — also recorded on ID cards — recording a person’s sex is not in line with international human rights standards set by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union. Considering recent developments in these institutions, it seems, at least on the surface, difficult to argue against that claim.

Article continues at https://thecritic.co.uk/europe-must-not-erase-sex/

"And if they have not, what explains why legislators across so many states are suddenly deciding that biological sex — not only a basic fact of human reproduction but a cornerstone of equality and non-discrimination law — is a relic of the past to be discarded like phrenology or geocentrism?"

Because there's this thing called an 'oversimplification' that the sophistication of modernity has outgrown.

Categorisations based on an overly simplistic, binary view of sex don't reflect human diversity or modern scientific understanding. Current perspectives recognise that biological sex itself has natural variations, and that gender identity is a subjective complex phenomena that has implications on limited social categories.

Categorisations based on an overly simplistic, binary view of sex don't reflect human diversity or modern scientific understanding. Current perspectives recognise that biological sex itself has natural variations, and that gender identity is a subjective complex phenomena that has implications on limited social categories.

<cough>bullshit<cough>

And yet babies are still made the way they always were....

The difficulty with that proposal is that if you are making the claim that sex is irrelevant, you have no hope of making the claim that gender is.

If sex doesn’t exist then how can sexism exist. (How convenient!)
If sex doesn’t exist the discriminating on the grounds of sex cannot be possible (How very convenient!)
If you think that sexism and discrimination based on sex don’t exist because sex doesn’t exist then you are either a liar or a fool.

The "proposal" isn't saying sex doesn't exist, rather that gender also exists that complicates social categorisations.

Trans women & cis women existing aren't mutually exclusive so that hardly make sex irrelevant.

O’Flaherty’s position stems from his long-standing advocacy to eliminate sex from law and practice, which culminated in his drafting of the Yogyakarta Principles in 2007, later updated in 2017 with a clear demand: that states must cease registering sex on all legal documents, including birth certificates.

With no recording of sex, everything would then become mixed sex, including prisons and all sports.

What could possibly go wrong?

And more to the point, how are all those laydees like India Willoughby who "just want to pee" going to get their kicks if the toilets all have men in them as well? How on earth are they going to get validated?

And when Jessica "wax my balls" Yaniv wants his balls waxed again, how disappointed is he going to be when the immigrant woman he tries to force to do the job turns out to be a hulking great bloke just like him who's only too happy to take on the task? And he'll have no recourse to the law to complain, because sex doesn't exist.

These people trying to abolish sex just haven't thought this through. Genderists don't want to abolish sex any more than sex realists do. They just want their gender feelz to matter more than sex, but only when it suits them.

The "proposal" isn't saying sex doesn't exist, rather that gender also exists that complicates social categorisations.
It only complicates if you believe that how someone presents actually effects their sex. If anything, it has become more important to register what sex someone is as gender presentation has become more fluid.

Trans women & cis women existing aren't mutually exclusive so that hardly make sex irrelevant.
Trans women and women are mutually exclusive. What do the two categories have in common? Nothing.

That isn’t even internally logical.

Why not?

If a criteria for the categorisation of who has access to single sex provisions isn’t unchangable and clearly defined, it makes the categorisation meaningless in the first instance.

There are legal protections for minors because statistically they are more vulnerable and less able to make decisions. Minor is defined as under 18. Would you say that some young men refusing to grow up mean they should be able to avail themselves of these legal protections and receive reduced sentences when they steal or rape? Or to force their parents to provide for them even when they're 40 because they feel like a child ?

Have you only just discovered Howses' little pearls of wisdom? You're in for a treat :)

We must resist the imposition of activist fantasies

Worth repeating.

Um no.

The context was if sex doesn't exist how can sexism & discrimination exist? But the premise was flawed in that gender recognition doesn't invalidate sex recognition. Being categorised under one umbrella term (woman/man) doesn't mean we can't distinguish between sub categories of cis & trans AND manage competing rights which we clearly can by laws that allow for discrimination if compelling reasons exist.

For example the "proportional rule" in the UK refers to the legal principle that allows for the proportionate exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces, a concept affirmed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This means a service can exclude trans women from spaces like hospital wards or rape crisis centers, but only if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

And let's not forget restrictions &conditions sporting bodies impose.

Another way to look at it is that Europe needs to prioritise established scientific fact over non-science based theories that rely on the metaphysical to support them.

There are now some very solid cases that show the detriment to female people when governments and organisations choose to prioritise the metaphysical theory. Sport is one. Prisons, refuges and rape support are others.

The ramifications of these examples are not diminished by the falsehood that ‘case by case’ decisions will eliminate the risk. It won’t. It never has yet to date. Yet we are told it is a sure and evidenced approach.

With each month that passes the inherent flaws in the weakening of safeguarding to follow these theoretical influences are being highlighted. That is the trajectory.

False equivalence.
You are falsely assuming there aren't any valid associations in both cases when there are for trans people. IE an adult is more likely to have more maturity that a child so there is no association that validates their desire to be treated as a child. But trans people have associations to their opposite sex in terms of inclinations that when expressed are aligned with gendered social categorisations.

@Howseitgoin your own premise is flawed as you assume that "woman" Is an umbrella term for adult human females and transwomen. It is not, despite the lie some people try to force down on our throats.
The. Word. Woman. Is. Already. Taken. And it was taken when the legal debates around protecting women's rights occurred. At that time not a single dictionary, not a single one, referred to women other than as AHF.

False. Workable adjustments in sport, prisons & refuges can & have been made.

"inherent flaws"

Tell me about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/23/dozens-of-labour-mps-warn-of-chaos-for-firms-over-gender-recognition-advice

I'm sure Europe has been taking notes..

@Howseitgoin But trans people have associations to their opposite sex in terms of inclinations that when expressed are aligned with gendered social categorisations.

As do non-trans people. I'd rather not revert back to regressive social stereotypes.

Oh do tell us. What are these associations with the opposite sex in terms of gendered inclinations? And how that would be different to an adult associating with the childish inclination of liking sweets and disliking responsibilities ?

I'm all ears. Really.

For example the "proportional rule" in the UK refers to the legal principle that allows for the proportionate exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces, a concept affirmed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This means a service can exclude trans women from spaces like hospital wards or rape crisis centers, but only if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

That's not what the Supreme Court ruling said. The ruling established that sex in the Equality Act means actual biological sex, so when the single sex exceptions are used, all males can be banned from female only spaces, regardless of how they identify, and even if they have a special lady ticket (GRC).

The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" clause would only be invoked to decide whether it was appropriate to apply the single sex exception. This wasn't part of the Supreme Court ruling.

"Revert back"

The reality is right or wrong typical associations to the sexes exist that is overwhelmingly maintained by the cis population…who without wouldn't exist. Trans people don't make the social categorisation rules the rest of us do.

Now you might argue as gender criticals naively do that these associations are patriarchally enforced but the truth lies closer to evolutionary pressures of reproduction & the desire whether consciously or unconsciously to accentuate sexual attractiveness …so good luck with the scolding….

I see you are now back to your ‘FALSE’ and ‘COMPREHENSION FAIL’ cycle. Emojis will follow soon, no doubt. Did the putting.full.stops.in.between.words.not.work.for.you?

Show us the ‘workable adjustments’ and how they have worked to fully protect female people from any harm caused by the inclusion of male people?

Or are we again going to the assertion that the only harm relevant is physical attack and injury to dismiss all the other harms that negative impact female people with the ‘case by case’ method?

Oh. Should I have written ‘FALSE 🤪’ at the start of my post so it mirrors your tactics? Surely by now you have realised that your writing ‘FALSE’ don’t make the post you are quoting false in reality. Just labelling things to suit yourself doesn’t make it everyone’s reality.

Howse just loves those regressive stereotypes. Without relying on those stereotypes, the whole trans agenda would fall apart and everyone would see it's just a bunch of pervy men with fetishes.

Actually I do believe that women tend to be statistically more empathetic, and personally I believe it has to do both with socialization and biological determinism. Women also tend to be smaller than men and have a rounder face etc. Many other such facts.

But this does NOT mean that a man who is small and has a round face is a woman. It just means he is a smallish man. Even if he likes dresses. And it's quite OK for him to like dresses.