Generally very solid, thorough, and heartfelt analysis. However, I’m sorry to say that it also exhibits some of the same sorts of flaws, misperceptions, scientific illiteracy, and motivated reasoning that led to the profoundly problematic Gender Recognition Act in the first place. More particularly:
Sarah Phillimore (SP): “... we can get some guidance from experts on the way.”
‘Rots of ‘ruck. Major part of the problem with the whole transgender clusterfuck is that far too many so-called experts – biologists and philosophers in particular -- don’t know their arses from a hole in the ground. For example, many so-called biological experts can’t agree on whether sex is a strict binary or a spectrum – lite or full-blown -- or, gawd help us, “socially constructed”. See my Binarists vs Spectrumists post for the sorry details, for the unedifying spectacle that has turned much of biology into a clown show:
humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/bi…
If we can’t even agree on how we should define “male” and “female” as sexes, much less as genders – and both ARE matters of definitions, of stipulations – then we’re not likely to be able to agree on any policies that depend on agreement on those definitions. We can, of course, define those categories any way we wish – pay them extra – but some definitions are more useful – and more universal – than others. Like the standard biological definitions promulgated by reputable sources like Oxford Dictionaries, the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (see their Glossary), and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (from a tweet):
web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/http…
web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/http…
academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1…
twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009… (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
But the crux of those definitions is that to have a sex is, in effect, to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither therefore being sexless. Hardly what any biologist worth their salt would call “immutable”.
One would think that if such definitions are good enough for pretty much all of biology then they should be good enough for the law and all of our social policies; sadly, one would be mistaken. Apropos of which, you in particular might be interested in the set of definitions for the sexes that the “sovereign state” of Oklahoma came up with recently. While they may have some utility, they are little better than folk-biology if not outright Lysenkoism:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-sign…
And while they may be commended for taking the bull by the horns, the fact of the matter is that those definitions of theirs are flatly contradicted by the aforementioned definitions from the Oxford sources. Which may well produce some serious conflicts with biological science and education on which we all increasingly depend on. Clearly, another case, speaking of the law making an ass of itself (again), where the law is, in effect, trying to command the tides not to come in. Didn’t work for King Canute some 1000 years ago, shouldn’t work now for those peddling the GRA.
However, both sets of definitions – Oklahoma’s and Oxford’s – illustrate an important difference between, on the one hand, the “attributes of sex” – “breasts and genitals” as you put it, or, more broadly “secondary sexual traits” – and, on the other hand, the traits that are essential to qualify as members of the sex categories. Those from Oklahoma say that either of two types “reproductive systems” are the tickets, are the category membership dues, that must be presented or paid for up front to qualify as male or female.
In which case, of course no transwoman with his ersatz breasts and neovagina is EVER going to have a biological system “designed to produce ova”. Ergo, not a female, never will be a female, no matter how desperately or noisily he insists to the contrary. He may well acquire some “secondary sexual traits” typical of females, but there is no way on gawd’s green earth that we can possibly “reassign his sex to female”, at least while remaining rational and scientific. The GRA is basically trying to perpetrate a fraud – to say the law is making an ass out of itself on the issue is probably being charitable if not criminally negligent.
However, somewhat more “problematic” is this statement of yours:
SP: “Gender has come to mean something much more than a delicate synonym for sex, and is used now to subsume sex itself ...”
Kinda think you’re barking up the wrong tree there as many people quite reasonably differentiate between “sex” and “gender”. Like the late great Justice Anton Scalia of the US Supreme Court:
AS: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/l…
No doubt many people wish to conflate those two categories – part of a bait-and-switch scam, in effect. But that they do so is no reason to reject the dichotomy that Scalia underlined – it is, in fact, the most effective way of unhorsing those scammers. IF “gender” is, in effect or to a first approximation, no better than a synonym for sexually dimorphic personality traits and physiologies – ones which are not at all unique to either sex – then it is profoundly risible that some currently or erstwhile dick-swinging dude with a few FEMININE personality traits or a neovagina should think to presume to qualify as an actual FEMALE, an individual with the ability, potential or actual, to produce ova. Entirely different kettles of fish, if not of species from entirely different biological families – fish versus fowl, or foul as the case may be.
SP: “... left with the fact that sex is real, immutable and important is also relegated to a ‘belief’ ... “
Really not a matter of belief, but of stipulation. We SAY, biologists SAY that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either two types, those with neither being sexless. The SAME way that we SAY, in England at least, that one MUST drive on the left-hand side of the road. Would you say those laws are matters of belief? Or of stipulation?
