In 2004 the law said a Gender Recognition Certificate made a man into a woman. 20 years later - where are we now? Why does a piece of paper give a man a right to strip search a woman?
Agree, agree, agree. I never thought 'The law is an ass' was actually as true as it seems to be presently. But I'm sure even an ass can change its ways with enough... persuasion!
There is only one acceptable answer to the “hot mess” which you reach in your point 9. I would go further and say that regardless of whether the preceding possibilities you mention are “too difficult”, the GRA and its adjunct PC must be repealed. The law should deal only in matters of objective reality; the concept of gender has no place in law and needs to be expunged wherever it arises and replaced with sex in those places where relevant. All GRCs issued prior to the date of repeal would be rendered void. The idea of State issued papers declaring that X is Y is an abomination.
Indeed. Though that's probably the most polite term you could use -- a dog's breakfast, a clown show, a pile of horse manure, all probably being more accurate, at least for polite company. Methinks that most of the "learn-ed ladies and gentlemen of the bar" don't seem to have a flaming clue what biologists mean by "biological sex" despite throwing the term about with gay abandon.
Though one might say the same about both "Sex Matters" and your confreres there at Genspect. Rather amused to note that searching the former gives some 166 matches on "biological sex", one of which -- the Wiley Online Library -- emphasizes, by definition, the transitory nature of the sex categories:
Wiley: "A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. .... Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
If y'all are going to bet the farm on "biological sex" then you all might actually try giving some thought to what actual biologists, -- at least those worth their salt -- mean by the terms "male" and "female".
But the whole transgender clusterfuck -- and your own "millions of pounds and hours wasted" -- is underlined by the elaboration of philosopher Will Durant on a principle promoted by Voltaire:
Durant: 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
However, the general problem, or at least the roots of it, is that far too many, on virtually all sides of that clusterfuck, refuse to "define their terms" with any degree of intellectual honesty and scientific accuracy. Methinks the problem and its roots go far deeper and are far more ubiquitous than you and many others are prepared to admit or even consider.
Absolutely agree. When are politicians and the justice system going to waken up to the real life harm these Laws are doing to REAL women ??
Agree, agree, agree. I never thought 'The law is an ass' was actually as true as it seems to be presently. But I'm sure even an ass can change its ways with enough... persuasion!
There is only one acceptable answer to the “hot mess” which you reach in your point 9. I would go further and say that regardless of whether the preceding possibilities you mention are “too difficult”, the GRA and its adjunct PC must be repealed. The law should deal only in matters of objective reality; the concept of gender has no place in law and needs to be expunged wherever it arises and replaced with sex in those places where relevant. All GRCs issued prior to the date of repeal would be rendered void. The idea of State issued papers declaring that X is Y is an abomination.
"The words ‘hot mess’ spring to mind."
Indeed. Though that's probably the most polite term you could use -- a dog's breakfast, a clown show, a pile of horse manure, all probably being more accurate, at least for polite company. Methinks that most of the "learn-ed ladies and gentlemen of the bar" don't seem to have a flaming clue what biologists mean by "biological sex" despite throwing the term about with gay abandon.
Though one might say the same about both "Sex Matters" and your confreres there at Genspect. Rather amused to note that searching the former gives some 166 matches on "biological sex", one of which -- the Wiley Online Library -- emphasizes, by definition, the transitory nature of the sex categories:
https://sex-matters.org/?s=biological+sex
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R
Wiley: "A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. .... Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
If y'all are going to bet the farm on "biological sex" then you all might actually try giving some thought to what actual biologists, -- at least those worth their salt -- mean by the terms "male" and "female".
But the whole transgender clusterfuck -- and your own "millions of pounds and hours wasted" -- is underlined by the elaboration of philosopher Will Durant on a principle promoted by Voltaire:
Durant: 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
However, the general problem, or at least the roots of it, is that far too many, on virtually all sides of that clusterfuck, refuse to "define their terms" with any degree of intellectual honesty and scientific accuracy. Methinks the problem and its roots go far deeper and are far more ubiquitous than you and many others are prepared to admit or even consider.