aaaja

This is an inaccurate narrative of sex in that it doesn't take into account other sexually reproducing species.

More specifically: not all species have an XY chromosome sex-determination system (see ZW or temperature-based systems), not all species have the same anatomy for sexual reproduction (consider egg-laying species), and other species have different sex hormones (for example insects have a hormonal system unique from mammals).

The biologist perspective of sex is to consider gametes (sex cells) as the basis. Two types, with one type (female) larger than the other (male). All other understanding relevant to the exact mechanism in each species is built upon this.

> exists on a spectrum, rather than being strictly binary

Not really though, at least not for biologists, who have an understanding of sex that encompasses all sexually reproducing species, based on there being two gamete types of different sizes.

This is why it's described as a binary, because of the two distinct types of reproductive cell. By convention the larger type is the female gamete and the smaller type is the male.

Having these consistent definitions is how biologists can discover new sexually reproducing species and understand the specifics, like are individuals hermaphroditic (each individual produces or can produce both female and male gametes) or gonochoric (individuals with distinct and unchanging sexes), and if the latter, which are the females and which are the males.

> I mean -- who knows a trivial solution to that?

Segregate by sex first and foremost, and then within each prison estate further separate prisoners by risk categories. It's what's done already for vulnerable inmates: ex-cops, gang informants, pedophiles, etc.

The reason that some penal systems started transferring males to women's prisons wasn't to protect them from other males - this was a justification invented afterwards - but because they decided to implement ideological beliefs that promoted gender identity over sex. Regardless of how much risk this exposes female prisoners to.

Thankfully this sort of policy is starting to be reversed, or has been already, almost everywhere it's been imposed.

This is really positive news for women in the UK. Up until now there's been considerable uncertainty over exactly who, by law, can have access to nominally single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court ruling clarifies this, and probably the most immediate impact of this will be on tribunal cases currently in progress.

There are two that have been widely publicized, involving female nurses working for NHS hospitals who've objected to male colleagues being allowed by hospital management to use female changing rooms on the basis of these males calling themselves women. This ruling means that the tribunals can now be expected to judge this policy, and the punitive actions of the NHS against female employees who objected, to be incompatible with the law.

At the same time the ruling clarifies that the law still protects people who have gender identity self-beliefs from harassment and discrimination, which is also good news and a sensible middle ground for how society should regard this phenomenon.

As any other readers of this thread will be able to observe, your response is a useful example of how misogynistic attitudes stifle discussion on women's issues.

Instead of engaging with curiosity and open-mindedness towards an expert UN report on this issue adversely affecting women and girls, you chose shallow, snarky dismissal and sarcastic quips.

Your reflexive refusal to take women's safety and fairness in sport seriously speaks volumes about your view of women more generally.

Thanks for linking the report though, even if it was just to cherry-pick bits of it to lazily sneer at. It gives other readers an easier way to click through and engage with the content thoughtfully.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, published a report on this recently. She examined the evidence and concluded that a protected female category is needed, at all levels of sport, to ensure fairness and - in contact sports - safety.

According to the research conducted for her report, the failure of governing bodies to exclude males from women's competitions has so far led to more than 600 female athletes losing out of 890 medals in 29 different sports - and this is likely to be a considerable underestimate.

Another adverse effect of male inclusion is that some female athletes, seeing the unfairness of this, will choose not to compete at all. Others will be displaced from qualifying for competition. By including males, governing bodies are excluding female athletes from what should be their own category.

The oft-repeated claim that it's just conservatives bringing up this issue is a false narrative, as is the incorrect assumption that this is being driven by "hate". Many people who have been speaking out on this - whether they're athletes themselves, UN officials, feminist activists, or simply just care about the wellbeing of women and girls - are doing so because they see the inherent unfairness and safety risks this imposes upon female athletes.

I believe you have been misinformed. In fact, there are a number of distinct groups of people who, for fundamentally different reasons, oppose policy derived from gender identity ideological beliefs.

In the case of policy that enabled incarcerated men to transfer to women's prisons, the opposition came first and foremost from radical feminist collectives, on the very clear principle of this being detrimental to women. Look at the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) in particular.

The Republican political machine only started to take a serious interest in this later on, when they realized this was an opportunity to attack the Democrats on unpopular and demonstrably harmful policy.

The pushback against trans rights advocacy is quite interesting because unlike with same-sex marriage, there are several distinct groups opposing it for fundamentally different reasons. Religious conservatives are one group. Radical feminists, female athletes, medical whistleblowers are others. And almost everyone draws a firm line against accepting gender identity beliefs in their romantic and sexual lives.

Trying to redefine "woman" and "man", "female" and "male", "homosexual" and "heterosexual" - and then reengineering society by decree based on these controversial redefinitions - is going to get opposition across the board.

I think this is why it's become such a hot "culture war" topic, because it undermines the deeply-held views of many, many more people than just religious conservatives.

Take gay marriage for instance - this was fought both for and against on the basis of it being a same-sex union. But from the perspective of gender identity believers, if, for example, someone female merely identifies as male, then marries a male (who also identifies as male), then this is a "gay marriage" too. Despite this actually being a heterosexual pairing.

On top of this, where these beliefs have been forced into law and policy, it has caused actual physical harms. Women being raped and impregnated by male prisoners who identified their way into the female prison estate is amongst the worst of these. But lawmakers in states that have enabled this will claim it's progressive policy, somehow. Even though it's regressing back to over a century ago when mixed-sex prisons where commonplace and incarcerated women were at constant risk of sexual violence and exploitation from the men they were locked up with.