British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
And as others said parliament can still at any time legislate that people with dicks have to be treated like biological women for this or that purpose in society.
Not any time in the foreseeable future, I wouldn't think. As the privileges and incentives for trans identification are withdrawn by law (schoolkids getting other kids told off by teacher for not respecting their gender choice, men and boys getting into women's and girls' toilets and changing rooms, men and boys getting into women's and girls' sports, rapists getting into women's prisons, men getting into women's hospital wards, men being searched by female police officers, women being threatened with contempt of court if they refer to the men who raped them as 'he', the NHS issuing new ID numbers to conceal patients' actual sex, and all that), the whole thing will go out of style, the numbers claiming trans identification will drop and the US-based ideology erected to support it will become marginal.
Not any time in the foreseeable future, I wouldn't think. As the privileges and incentives for trans identification are withdrawn by law (schoolkids getting other kids told off by teacher for not respecting their gender choice, men and boys getting into women's and girls' toilets and changing rooms, men and boys getting into women's and girls' sports, rapists getting into women
This is a different issue. Your personal analysis of British politics makes you believe those specific protections won't quickly be extended to people with dicks by this or future parliaments.
You might be right in your assessment ofc.
But my claim was simply that no point of constitutional law handcuffing future parliaments was made. Especially in your country where the constitution is "unwritten", the court could have ruled that having a dick and thinking you are a woman or viceversa cannot logically or morally ever make you a member of a protected class for example, because self identification can never allow you to become the member of a protected class.
The court could have said that protected classifications requires objective membership in a class measured without ambiguity by third parties for example
But my claim was simply that no point of constitutional law handcuffing future parliaments was made.
That wouldn't be legally possible, because Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound. (Which is why even the Bill of Rights of 1689 is not binding and Parliament could pass the Firearms Act 1920 and its successors, while the Americans are still stuck with the antique Second Amendment at a heavy annual cost in lives.) In any case the ideology causing this particular problem is going to go out of fashion -- all ideologies do, and this one can't survive contact with reality.
It's necessarily vague. It's why I seriously doubt they want to precisely define 'biological sex' and wont unless forced to - even if they do it will just what is covered by the what they think the law meant rather than any sort of opinion on reality.Language and the law are way behind reality. Poeple are going to struggle with just how little any of it means as we master our b
They kinda did define it actually. Wtf does necessarily vague even mean? You trying to challenge craig in the cryptic stakes? 😆
It means the concept can't be encapsulated precisely within the language.
It's a common thing. Porrnography is the goto (if misquoted) example.
He's a lawyer, what do you expect? Someone with principles and beliefs?
He didn't get where he is today by having a spine.
You can define it as precisiely as you like but then you're going to have to accept some consequences you probably wont find acceptable and which make no sense to most.
You said "They kinda did define it actually"
Sounds a bit vague. Why only 'kinda' and what definition of 'biological sex' did they kinda give.
You can define it as precisiely as you like but then you're going to have to accept some consequences you probably wont find acceptable and which make no sense to most.
You said "They kinda did define it actually"
Sounds a bit vague. Why only 'kinda' and what definition of 'biological sex' did they kinda give.
No, vague was actually your first paragraph chez.
They kinda- and by that I mean absolutely- said a woman is defined by biology, excluding transgender women, so hopefully that unvagues things for you.
Yet it remains relatively easy to explain how babies are made.
As before, I invite you to give us this precise definition of biological sex which then precisely defines who is a woman. As long as you stand by it and all it's consequences I wont argue with you much although I wont agree with you.
And as per the conversation afaics the court never gave this precise definition. Which would be very wise imo.
Finally they just made a legal ruling, they didn't settle anything outside the law and the law can (and I expect will) be changed.
As before, I invite you to give us this precise definition of biological sex which then precisely defines who is a woman. As long as you stand by it and all it's consequences I wont argue with you much although I wont agree with you.And as per the conversation afaics the court never gave this precise definition. Which would be very wise imo.Finally they just made a legal ruling
Male is the sex that produces small mobile gametes. Female is the sex that produces large immobile gametes.
A woman is an adult human female. Within this equation, "female" is the category that is easiest to understand using science and explain using language, AINEC.
To prove this, I would invite you to give a precise definition of human and/or adult.
I dont have precise definitions of human or adult. Legal definitions maybe but they are vague concepts. When does someone become adult? How much can we change before someone becomes or ceases to be human - going to be avery intersting question this century (or just maybe the next one)
Anyway it sound like you would accept what many would consider men as women if the sex change pocedures still qualify as per your large gametes criteria. Sounds odd to me but whatever
I dont have precise definitions of human or adult. Legal definitions maybe but they are vague concepts.
Nonetheless, most people agree that it's a good thing to draw arbitrary lines in the sand, defined by age, to protect individuals. For example, you need to be 18 years old to buy alcohol, or 16 to consent to sexual activity.
These legal boundaries are far more arbitrary than biological sex, yet few people have issues with them and they work fine in practice.
Arbitrary lines in law are necessary for practical reasons but they differ around the world and they change. They dont always work fine in practice.
It's also very bad imo to enforce them too rigorously. At the boundaries judgement is required e.g prosecuting someone who is 16 and a day for sex with someone who is two days younger would be abhorent.
