"Simple" - or not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dave2002
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 18151

    "Simple" - or not?

    The Guardian reports this:



    which seems straighforward, and simplifies some of the issues re gender which have emerged over the last decade or more.

    Unfortunately it does ignore some biology and perhaps leaves some people stranded. There are a relatively few people who may have male or female characteristics, but who are genetically anomalous.

    Time magazine recently had a letter or article from or about one such person, so while gender assignment at birth is presumably simple in around 98% or more of the population, some people are born different.

    Just as it is generally true that "men" are male, and "women" are female is largely correct, for a few people this does not work.

    It appears to have been recognised as a "problem" to be solved in the past, leading to potentially unwanted solutions, either involving drugs or surgery.

    Thus just as most people are born with 5 fingers and 5 toes on hands and feet, there are some who do not have those characteristics.

    Medics may then interfere, and suggest surgical treatments, though as in some of the cases from the recently refocused cases of birth "defects" due to the contamination in the dismantling of the Corby steel works, in some cases it might have been better to just leave the children alone - rather than subject them to years of painful or seemingly pointless surgery.

    So the legal system has "solved" one issue, but swept some others under the carpet.

  • Serial_Apologist
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 38348

    #2
    A point I made on the Pedant's thread was that it seems strange, too, that sex must always be for life, following the ruling, regardless of whether a person has (been) transitioned, naturally, as in the instances you mention, or by means of hormone treatments and surgery.

    Comment

    • vinteuil
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 13367

      #3
      ... as I wrote on the Pedants' thread, I thought this a good summary of the 'real life' issues the Supreme Court was grappling with -

      There were scenes of jubilation for women's campaigners outside the Supreme Court as the ruling was read out.


      .

      Comment

      • Dave2002
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 18151

        #4
        Originally posted by vinteuil View Post
        ... as I wrote on the Pedants' thread, I thought this a good summary of the 'real life' issues the Supreme Court was grappling with -

        There were scenes of jubilation for women's campaigners outside the Supreme Court as the ruling was read out.


        .
        I don't object to clarifying issues, and maybe resolving some of the difficult societal problems which have arisen due to gender/sex issues in the last decade or so, but "biological sex." is not always so easy to define.
        What does that mean? Obvious - you may think - but is it really - in every case?

        Comment

        • vinteuil
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 13367

          #5
          Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
          Obvious - you may think - but is it really - in every case?
          ... I don't think these questions are simple. The Supreme Court here are not acting as scientists, nor as philosophers, nor yet theologians. As they make clear they are trying to respond to practical human dilemmas.

          Comment

          • Dave2002
            Full Member
            • Dec 2010
            • 18151

            #6
            Originally posted by vinteuil View Post

            ... I don't think these questions are simple. The Supreme Court here are not acting as scientists, nor as philosophers, nor yet theologians. As they make clear they are trying to respond to practical human dilemmas.
            I agree, but the judgement doesn't address the issues of some [not a large proportion I'd guess] people whose "biological sex" - whatever that is - is hard to determine. Maybe that is the best that can be done - which could have unfortunate consequences, though possibly better than the situation before this judgement.

            Comment

            • Dave2002
              Full Member
              • Dec 2010
              • 18151

              #7
              Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
              A point I made on the Pedant's thread was that it seems strange, too, that sex must always be for life, following the ruling, regardless of whether a person has (been) transitioned, naturally, as in the instances you mention, or by means of hormone treatments and surgery.
              Personaly I don't have a problem with "sex for life" - just that it may be hard to determine what sex a person actually is at birth in some relatively few instances. There may not be a simple fix to deal with such anomalous cases. One way [which doesn't work] is to consider a neutral gender for cases where it is uncertain, but then how would a person classed as neutral behave in relations with others with a definite gender assignment? In cases involving a requirement for legal judgement the same issues would re-emerge. Currently behaviours considered feasible are between three groups - Male-Male, Male-Femaie and Female-Female. Issues which are of concern with the interactions between the groups are of several kinds, including violence of one party on another, fairness in many social and work situations, and also responsibility if there are offspring involved.

              Comment

              • smittims
                Full Member
                • Aug 2022
                • 4975

                #8
                I think we have made some progress, though, as someone who well remembers people feeling obliged to hide their trans-sexuality by pretending to be conventionally-defined 'men' or 'women' when they must have been racked with inner tensions and subject to work colleagues saying behind their back that they were 'a bit odd' and so on.

                On another level , though, we clearly have some way to go. A recent discussion on Rdaio 4 never got started because the representatives of different points of view on the subject refused to accept the other's linguistic terms .

                The long-term aim , surely, is for each person to be accepted simply as a unique human being. Only more open-mindedeness will bring this about.

                Comment

                • Dave2002
                  Full Member
                  • Dec 2010
                  • 18151

                  #9
                  I thought the clarification on one of the R4 programs [Today] yesterday was helpful. What the ruling seems to have done is to declare that "trans" men are not to be considered women, and similarly presumably "trans" women are not to be considered as men.

                  It seems that in many social contexts this is a practical and useful step forward, though actually still ducks the question as there are some people whose sex/gender at birth is not so clearly defined, even if those people are a small proportion of total populations.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X