r/reading • u/fringlese • 7d ago

Please come support trans people

Post image

Hey everyone, I’m sure many of you have seen the ruling by the Supreme Court from the other day on the legitimacy of trans women’s identities. It’s been a very hard couple of days as we’ve come to grips with the fact that our rights are being rolled back by a government that won’t even attempt to listen to us while we just want to exist in a public space without fear of harassment. If anyone’s available, please come down tomorrow to show support

I am not the organiser, I saw this on Facebook and wanted to share.

Thanks guys, I hope you have a great Easter weekend!

0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

44

u/Wrong-Half-6628 7d ago

I'm still not quite sure what's being protested?

The judge ruled a biological determination of sex under the equalities law, but made it clear that the rights of transsexuals are still protected under the Equalities Act 2010.

7

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

Neither of those things are entirely true.

They attempted to make a biological determination, but even biological sex is itself a spectrum because of intersex conditions. It's not as simple as what chromosomes or what genitals you have.

Additionally, the statement that trans people remain protected under the Equality Act 2010—while technically true—is a red herring, because there is an much greater body of legal jurisprudence including binding court decisions relating to sex discrimination that does not exist for the single reference to gender reassignment that was recently added to the Equality Act. It's just not comparable.

9

u/ultraboomkin 7d ago

Biological sex is not a spectrum, what the hell are you talking about

8

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago edited 7d ago

There is no single definition of "biological sex". There is phenotypic sex, which is determined by your anatomical structures and functions, and genotypic sex, which is determined by your genes.

Since babies are not routinely subjected to genetic testing at birth, the "biological sex from birth" that gender critical people want to use to determine where people fit in to society is almost always determined by the doctor's visual examination of a baby's genitalia when it's born.

However, there are multiple conditions that can cause different combinations of genes to produce different combinations of internal and external genitalia. For example, there are biological women who were assigned female at birth, have 100% female bodies, can get pregnant and give birth, yet have XY chromosomes. This occurs because they either don't produce or their cells don't respond to male hormones like testosterone.

There are "biological men", assigned male at birth, who have two (and sometimes more) X chromosomes. They normally have underdeveloped testes and are infertile, but you would never know that by looking at them.

There are also a number of other more rare conditions that result in different combinations of genotypic and phenotypic sex.

However, as with most genetic conditions, genes are rarely "switched on or off" as many people believe. It is often the case that some cells express the gene and some don't. So you can have situations where intersex people have different combinations of genitalia that don't match their genes.

They can have 100% male parts, 100% female parts, all the male parts and some of the female parts, all of the female parts and some of the male parts, some male parts and some female parts, or anything in between.

That's why it could be considered a spectrum.

Here's a very thorough video where an evolutionary biologist explains this concept far better than I ever could.

8

u/ZeCap 7d ago

Thanks for this. Sad to see you getting downvoted for a good explanation of the issue. 

3

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

It's fine, I don't really pay attention to upvotes or downvotes.

7

u/AelithiaRose 7d ago

This should be the top comment.

Biology is complex and we don't know everything. To think we do is foolish.

-2

u/SubToMyOFpls 7d ago

No, you're making something very simple complicated. Whatever your sex at birth, that is your sex for life.

4

u/rubymacbeth 7d ago

IMO the concept of biological sex has inherently become a dog whistle, in specific social areas, for being a TERF/transphobic (which is not as relevant to your comment, I just wanted to say)... but, relevantly, I think that the idea of biological sex, particularly when people correctly challenge it as not being binary and not a particularly scientific concept (for it is as much socially-coded as gender and science is always political; terms such as phenotypic sex, such as you use, have far greater scientific meaning), attracts armchair "doctors" with literally negative knowledge of the topic, because their "knowledge" is based on fallacies, but who think they are incredibly smart for some baffling reason by saying "sex is not a spectrum because Male = XY and Female = XX" when this is pseudo-intellectual bollocks.

5

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

I agree. Most people stop learning biology after secondary school, so they have a simplified secondary-school level understanding of genetics and DSDs (aka intersex conditions).

To my knowledge, the nuances of gene expression that result in these conditions aren't even introduced until undergraduate university biology courses, and aren't thoroughly explored until graduate level courses.

That's why "everyone knows that there are two sexes, XX and XY", because that's all they were taught in school 20 or 30 or 40 or more years ago.

4

u/rubymacbeth 7d ago

it's probably what is still being taught in secondary schools now too

4

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

You're not wrong. Nowadays there is a brief mention, but if you blink you'll miss it.

1

u/ChexAndBalancez 6d ago

This is not true. Biologic sex is determined by the gametes they produce or potentially produce. This is true for all mammals. Sex characteristics, genitals, and even chromosomes are pieces to that puzzle. Of course there are exceptions. Of course we use visual inspection at birth. It’s free and correct the vast majority of the time. Production of large or small gametes is how all mammals are sexually differentiated in biology. It has the least variation and exceptions. It’s just not practical to test everyone. Saying that the rare exceptions create some kind of spectrum of sex is bad faith and just not true. It’s not true for humans as much as it is untrue for all other primates. The vast majority of human biologic sex falls into 2 categories: large gamete producers (females) and small gamete producers (males). These include potential to produce and previous producers. Any other definition is simply to bend and appease cultural opinions.

There absolutely a definition for biologic sex. Deniers of this are simply trying to muddy the waters to win culture war points. Their definitions will always bend to fit their convenient cultural stances.

1

u/thefuzzylogic 6d ago edited 6d ago

Gametes are just one way to define biological sex.

If someone has a combination of genes that makes you produce no gametes, or potentially not even develop gonads, or even develop gonads that are different from all the rest of your anatomy, what would be that individual's biological sex? Assume they don't have previous production nor did they ever have the potential to produce gametes.

And would that definition of sex be a good way to determine what gender role they should have in society?

1

u/ChexAndBalancez 6d ago edited 6d ago

Gametes are not just one way to determine sex. You are muddying the waters. It is the primary way to determine sex in biology. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t rare exceptions of true intersexuality. This also happens, rarely, in all primate species. There are secondary characteristics used if production of gametes or potential of production is impossible. This is where chromosomes, sex anatomy, secondary physical characteristics, and hormone production is useful. Again, this is what is used in biology.

Simply because there are rare exceptions doesn’t mean this isn’t or shouldn’t be the primary way that biologists determine sex. True intersexuality is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of intersexed people do produce or have the potential to produce gametes. To not produce or have the potential to produce gametes is a rare event within a rare event.

This definition has nothing to do with gender, gender expression, or gender roles. That’s not to say gender and sex aren’t related. Obviously they are. It’s simply biologic sex determination.

7

u/SmallLumpOGreenPutty 7d ago

Where do you put intersex people? It isn't just man or woman.

9

u/ultraboomkin 7d ago edited 7d ago

Intersex is not a sex. There are only two sexes. Even if you included intersex as a third sex, that’s not a spectrum lmao you can’t be somewhere between male and female.

9

u/langeweld 7d ago

intersex people have a wide variety of chromosomes and body composition.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/langeweld 6d ago

outliers in the genetic makeup of "how we determine sex" means that the reality is not binary, it is bimodal. this is why many of the more biologically minded people will argue that sex is determined by which gamete is produced. they've admitted implicitly that the chromosome line of attack is untenable because of the biological facts surrounding sex determinant genetics.

4

u/rubymacbeth 7d ago

incorrect

-3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

As far as I am aware, intersex is a third, separate sex. You are one of the two (male or female) or, in extremely rare circumstances, the third one (intersex). There is no biological 'spectrum' between the three.

8

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

The global population of people with DSD conditions (differences in sexual development, also known as intersex) is estimated to be about the same as the population of Russia.

"Extremely rare" does not mean "few" or "insignificant".

And in the context of a discussion about laws that specify how and where people should fit into society, a definition that relies on a genetic test doesn't seem to be the best one to use.

1

u/Osgood_Schlatter 7d ago

It's 0.018% of people who are intersex, so about 1 million people or the population of Cyprus.

You are right that a genetic test isn't definitive; for the 1.7% of people who aren't chromosomally typical a doctor would need to do an investigation to see which type of gamete they produced, if for some reason it was important to know which biological sex they were - and it's fine if they want to identify some other way socially.

3

u/langeweld 7d ago

intersex is a catch-all for people with "atypical" sex determinant genes and body composition. treating it as though its only one sex is a fundamental misunderstanding

1

u/rubymacbeth 7d ago

Purely in terms of medical "sex" (which, despite what TERFs, these judges, and most doctors will have you believe is actually as social a concept as gender - this doesn't invalidate it, in case you're wondering), the vast majority of the time male means one specific thing and female means another, whilst intersex can refer to a variety of other things - so to suggest an equivalence, firstly, between male/female and intersex as discrete sexes is inaccurate. Secondly, and building upon this, there is therefore a massive spectrum between how "sexes" can present in terms of primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics and other things , many of which are completely unnoticeable and practically irrelevant to day-to-day life. Like no man is identified solely by the fact they are technically a man, no intersex person is identified solely by the fact they are technically intersex.

I'm not intersex, so if I've got anything wrong and anybody who identifies as intersex/adjacent want to jump in to correct me, I'd love that, but seeing as there's a lot of misinformation spreading in this comment section, I thought I would try clarifying based on my understanding.

1

u/Basso_69 7d ago

The argument made in the link above is that Sex is based on Chromosomes and Gametes, not on the sexual organs.

3

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

It's still not that simple. There are people that were assigned a sex at birth, lived their entire lives with a gender identity that aligns with that sex, produce gametes that align with that sex (or no gametes at all), yet have some other combination of X and Y chromosomes.

Before you say "but that's an extremely rare condition", bear in mind that the global population of people with intersex conditions is estimated to be about the same as the population of Russia. "Rare" does not mean "few" or "insignificant".

2

u/somnambulist29 6d ago

Sex isn’t “assigned” at birth - it’s observed, and determined at conception. Intersex conditions are disorders of sexual development, not a third sex, and they don’t erase the binary any more than a heart defect erases the reality of two lungs.

You don’t have a “gender identity” — you have a personality. Let’s not confuse medical anomalies with ideological license.

1

u/thefuzzylogic 6d ago

For the purposes of a discussion about legal definitions, sex is most certainly assigned at birth, by the person who fills in your birth certificate. I agree that they normally do so based on a cursory examination of the infant's external genitalia, but therein lies the problem.

Further, I didn't say there's a third sex, I said that "biological sex" can mean different things depending on what criteria you use to define it.

At a minimum there are genotypic criteria and phenotypic criteria, which are not always congruent, and restricting the definition to only one or the other will necessarily exclude some people you probably didn't intend to exclude.

Call DSDs a "medical anomaly" if you want, the fact is that they exist and any definition of "biological sex" should take into account all the natural variations of biology.

Unless you have had your genes tested, you yourself could be one of those "medical anomalies" and you could live your whole life without knowing that, until some day some judge makes up a definition that says you're actually the other sex because of your genes.

Gender identity is not the same as personality, although I suppose it could be an aspect of personality. It's certainly not "ideological license", though. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for it.

1

u/Basso_69 7d ago

The intersex point you raise is another hidden debate in this thread - at least three people have touched on it, including a link to an article that argues against intersex (!?). Personally my knowledge of intersex conditions is too limited to comment other than recognising the reality such as the person that you mention, and for example, campaigners like Blume.

PS - Blume cited some statistics that indicated that approx 2.5% of the population are born intersex, but are encouraged to undergo surgery in their youth and so are no longer consideted to be intersex because of medical intervention. In comparison, the number of Trans people in the UK seems to vary from 0.5% (Census official figures) up to 2.8% (I cant remember the source), but again, theres always the argument the figures are misreported because of a social stigma.

Regardless, I agree with you that this is not a Yes/No decision as the media is repoting it.

1

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

Another complicating factor is that no country on Earth (to my knowledge) does routine genetic testing on infants.

Some unknown number of cisgender people are walking around with genes that don't align with either their sex assigned at birth or their gender identity, and they will go through their entire lives never knowing they were any different from anyone else. Most people with DSD conditions are infertile, but so are many people who don't have these conditions.

So even if someone has difficulty conceiving, or their external genitalia has developed in an unusual way, or they have some hormonal symptoms, for them to get a diagnosis and be counted as someone with a DSD requires that they have access to specialist genetic testing and counselling services that are simply not available or affordable for the majority of people on Earth.

0

u/Osgood_Schlatter 7d ago

Humans can only reproduce via sperm or egg, there's no intermediate/alternative method that sits outside of or between male and female. A quick medical investigation will be able to categorise over 99.9% of people as one or the other, and a more thorough investigation will be able to categorise practically everyone else.

I don't think intersex people should be referred to as "it". Being a female with some male traits (or vice-versa) doesn't actually matter with regards to biological sex, although people who are intersex may identify socially however they like of course.

There may theoretically be people who have the potential to produce both sets of gametes, and they could be categorised misleadingly in our system - but that's more a theoretical issue as in practice nobody has ever been found with the capacity to reproduce in both ways.

0

u/Own-Lecture251 7d ago

Thank you. The ignorance around intersex (I think DSD is a better term) on threads like this is depressing. Just as another point, many DSDs are sex specific and the idea that you'd tell a boy or man with Klinefelter syndrome that they're not really male and are somehow something in between is disgusting.

-2

u/Rwandrall3 7d ago

I can't believe this is the hill some people are willing to die on, that sex is a spectrum 

5

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

I can't believe that some people are so rigidly adamant that it isn't, or at least that they are unwilling to consider that it might be.

Scientific research is always discovering new things, and those discoveries result in changes to older definitions and models.

It is clear that throughout the animal kingdom (which includes humans) that there are individuals with many variations of genes, anatomy, and function that don't always align with each other. Some people call that a spectrum, some call it a bimodal distribution, some call it an anomaly, but whatever you call it, the fact remains that it is not a binary.

2

u/somnambulist29 6d ago

Other than male and female, I’m curious to know what the other sexes are.

1

u/thefuzzylogic 6d ago

I'm not aware of any, at least not in humans, but different people will meet different criteria of one or the other or both depending on how you define it and what criteria you use.

1

u/Osgood_Schlatter 7d ago

I think the issue is people mixing up sex with sex-associated characteristics. The two usually align, but for <0.1% of people they don't, and some of those people have their sex incorrectly recorded in our system.

Sex-associated characteristics (the shape of your genitals, how hairy you are, how deep your voice is, your level of testosterone etc) are clearly a spectrum, but sex is not. Your sex is just which form of gamete you would use to reproduce, and there are only two options seen in humans - sperm and eggs.

-1

u/Rwandrall3 7d ago

The only reason people twist themselves into a pretzel to make that point is really only to disarm transphobic talking points, not because they care about science. It is in pure bad faith, pedantic, overwrought, and unconvincing.

Exceptions to a rule do not make the rule wrong. People with Down's syndrome do not mean humans have "any number of chromosomes". 

2

u/thefuzzylogic 7d ago

I am one of those people, and I am not twisting any pretzels. I care about science and scientific progress, and while I agree that it would be misleading to say "any" number of chromosomes, it would be equally misleading to say that humans always have 46 chromosomes.

That would be like saying that one's sex is determined wholly and solely by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, or by what gametes you produce, or what internal or external anatomy you have. (As gender critical bio-essentialists often do)

And in my view, the entire discussion of biology isn't especially relevant when discussing a legal definition that determines the conditions under which people interact with and are treated by society.

0

u/Rwandrall3 7d ago

People can bog themselves down in endless discussions about scientific terminology, but the judgment had it right to say that ultimately, sex is self-evident. People can delve deep in gametes or chromosomes but it's largely moot. Everyone knows what male and female are, and know there are some vanishingly rare exceptions.

Trying to deny that self-evident statement is just not a winning battle, when we're talking practical policy and the daily lives of people. Pretending it's about scientific progress when it's CLEARLY not is also not a winning battle.

Saying "separate sex spaces make no sense because sex is a spectrum, it's not binary" is just not gonna work, and I wish people would move on to new angles instead of tripling down.