"UK refusal to issue gender-neutral passports unlawful, high court told"

Isn't that a bit of a straw man? I mean we're talking about passports, not access to domestic violence shelters or prisons - to my knowledge there would nothing to gain from having a d instead of an f or an m on your passport. Not reason, therefore to do so unless you felt you need to surely?

I don't accept your implied arguement that trans people are inherently 'dangerous' however I do accept that there are certain circumstances like those you mention where the issue of self determination is tricky. I have no issue with self determination. Call yourself what ever you like. That doesn't stop you from having to prove a sincere desire to transition before accessing certain services such as woman's aid shelters perhaps. Indeed it seems only reasonable to protect all woman using such services, including trans woman, from the threat of men pretending to be a woman to gain access to them. A trickier point may be what to do with people while they're meeting those proofs, and deciding what proof is reasonable.

What governs access to a domestic violence shelter or access ultimately to almost any important or official service or venue?

Identification - I. E a passport

Therefore the details that passport contains are very important.

I think you have perhaps read too much into my argument if you think I'm suggesting my argument is based on trans people necessarily being (physically) dangerous (although I don't doubt in certain cases this could be true)

A a cis male I personally have nothing to fear (physically) from any trans person.

I do however, for example, want my daughters to be able to train and compete in competitive women's sports against other biological women and not against biological men if they choose to do so as biological men, on average, have a huge advantage over biological women when it comes to strength and physical endurance and hormone therapy and genital surgery doesn't undo past male physical development.

I am primarily however against the idea as I view it as part or a wider assault on one of the bedrocks of Western enlightenment society. Its an assault on objective reality which is to be replaced by subjective feelings.

It may seen silly or trivial to you but I believe its none the less important. As I consider myself a Liberal I support the general right of people to express themselves how they see fit but I won't sacrifice my cognitive functions to state what I know not to be true.......

Which in this case is that a trans woman or man is to be considered in exactly the same fashion as a cis woman or man.

This is evidently not true for me or the vast majority of the populace.
 
Its like you totally ignored my post! There is a difference between a woman who can't have children due to age, injury or biological defect and a trans woman who can't have children as they are biologically male!

You're ignoring both your own post and my reply. I was talking about your definition of sex. Which you're now ignoring. You defined sex in terms of reproductive function. By that definition, anyone who has no reproductive function has no sex. Full stop, end of story. That's your definition. Other differences are not relevant to that definition.

An analogy:

Definition: A triangle has three sides.

Result of that definition: Any shape that does not have three sides is not a triangle.

Your reply: There's a difference between an octagon and a nonagon!

Total nonsense cells absolutely can have a sex! Did you ever study any science? You do realise that a scientist given a sample of my dna, from a single cell, could say conclusively that it came from a (biological) male! Really go read a text book and learn something!

My knowledge of physiology is based on knowledge rather than ideology, so it's clearly superior to yours. The idea that a cell can have a sex is ideology, not reality. A cell doesn't have sex organs. It doesn't have anything that can rationally be called a sex.

I'm not surprised that you're now changing your definition of sex to DNA. I won't be surprised when you change it back again. As I said before: "You don't have a definition for sex other than "What I say so because I say so". You're just making up ad hoc "definitions" to dress up not having one."

From a sample of your DNA, a scientist could determine what type of sex chromosomes the sample cell(s) had. That's it. Even if that sample did contain type XY sex chromosomes (which it very probably but not definitely would), that does not mean that the cell has a sex. I could, for example, look at a small part of a blueprint for a building and determine that the small part in question is the blueprint for a bathroom. Does that mean that the blueprint itself is a bathroom?

I wouldn't be surprised if you're so ignorant of biology that you don't know what "genotype is not phenotype" means. Perhaps you should read a text book and learn something. Something more than a level of over-simplification suitable for a children's introductory course on biology.
 
Because someone didn't decide they observed this person's sex at birth. It wasn't an arbitrary decision made at birth. Passports are official documents not social media profiles they need to reflect objective reality not subjective feelings.

Absolutely!

So a passport has to reflect objective reality in the present.

If, as you suggest, a passport has to reflect objective reality at birth, then every passport should only contain a photo of the person as they were when they were born, not as they are now, and everyone's age should be given as no more than a few minutes, preferably only a few seconds. Because change is impossible.
 
My knowledge of physiology is based on knowledge rather than ideology, so it's clearly superior to yours. The idea that a cell can have a sex is ideology, not reality. A cell doesn't have sex organs. It doesn't have anything that can rati
onally be called a sex.



See how I posted some actual (scientific) links to support my positions yet you, with your 'superior knowledge', didn't?

I guess your think you are so smart people should just take what your assert at face value in your mind?
 
Absolutely!

So a passport has to reflect objective reality in the present.

(assuming you are biologically male)..... If you have your penis and testicles removed, have something approximating female external genitalia constructed in its place, get some fake breasts and take female hormones you are still not objectively a (biological) woman.

You might be able to have work done that could fool an unsuspecting person but that's still not good enough.

(same goes of you are a woman to trans man)

Go ask a representative sample of cis males if they were single and found, what they intially believed to be a woman, attractive whether information that the other person had 'transitioned' gender would affect their views on the matter.
 
See how I posted some actual links to support my positions yet you, with your 'superior knowledge', didn't?

I guess your think you are so smart people should just take what your assert at face value in your mind?

No, I think they should read and learn something and think rather than accepting an ideological position as gospel despite it making no sense. It doesn't take much knowledge to realise that a single cell doesn't have a sex, but some people will pretend that it does for ideological reasons. A single cell can have a blueprint for a sex, but is not a sex itself.

As I said before:

I could, for example, look at a small part of a blueprint for a building and determine that the small part in question is the blueprint for a bathroom. Does that mean that the blueprint itself is a bathroom?

Your position is like arguing that the blueprint itself, the piece of paper or image on a screen, is a bathroom.
 
No, I think they should read and learn something and think rather than accepting an ideological position as gospel

My 'ideological' position with at least parts supported by scientific links vs your total assertion?

No cells have sex! You would literally be laughed at if you tried to say that to a bunch of embryologists!
 
Last edited:
Just to show how stupid the 'cells can't have a sex' thing is some more links....


Recent discoveries showing single celled organisms can reproduce sexually!

Single celled amoeba having sex..


Amoebas are single-celled blobs that house their DNA in nuclei, just like all of their eukaryotic relatives (humans included). Although some amoebas presumably cannot have sex and divide by mitosis, others are among the eukaryotes that can have sex

I'm sure Angilion will be along shortly with their superior knowledge to set the record straight!
 
Last edited:
You're ignoring both your own post and my reply. I was talking about your definition of sex. Which you're now ignoring. You defined sex in terms of reproductive function. By that definition, anyone who has no reproductive function has no sex. Full stop, end of story. That's your definition. Other differences are not relevant to that definition.

A car that doesn't run because the engine is broken is still a car.

Its the potential to reproduce naturally and sexually, as a child bearer, that defines a living human as a woman. It doesn't matter if an individual woman can't reproduce due to age, injury or defect for much the same reason as a car that is defective or broken down is still a car.

A trans woman isn't able to (have the possibility) of bearing children naturally not because of age, defect or injury but because they are not a biological woman! (you can construct a similiar argument for a trans man)

As I said previously I expect a sufficiently advanced science may one day literally be able to change a persons actual sex. But we are not there yet!
 
I really don't understand gender neutral, if you have a penis, you're a man, if you have a vagina, you're a woman. Isn't it really that simple, nothing can change that, you can't simply cut it off and say you're a woman.
 
From the article on the bbc:
"It will be necessary for the government to consider to what extent if any, in an age of increasing social and legal awareness and acceptance of the importance of issues relating to diversity and equality, the recording of an individual's sex and/or gender in official and other documentation is justified."

Seems the best approach, to take it off completely as it's not really important
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44575229

Common sense prevails in a high court challenge.

What if I said I didn't feel like I had a date of birth, and wanted to come up with another one. Or place of birth. It's simply factual information. You can identify whatever you like, but for legal documents just put in the factual answer to what you are being asked.
I wonder how much money he wasted on this silly case? £20,000?
 
I really don't understand gender neutral, if you have a penis, you're a man, if you have a vagina, you're a woman. Isn't it really that simple, nothing can change that, you can't simply cut it off and say you're a woman.
In many places/aspects of life we've reached the stage where simply saying, "I identify as..." is enough.

Hence having un-modified males competing as women.

Reproductive roles is a fairly critical part in differentiating between the two sexes. Whilst there are undoubtedly some unhappy cases where biological processes fail, and the result is somewhat peculiar, that doesn't have to always be the case - someone may "simply" choose to change how they identify. Thus you can have a "normal", reproductively correct, functioning male choose to "become" a female.

The idea that this can be a lifestyle choice is normally strictly taboo and I'll get shouted at for saying this, but I'm sure some people effectively choose to change how they identify based on depression or confusion/a.n.other non-biological reason. People who could have (and did) father children; who have now "become" women and lost all reproductive function. Or even without any modification have decided they "are" women, because that's "how they identify".

Thankfully we haven't yet got to the stage where I'm forced to say that a man identifying as a women is a bona-fide woman. I'm sure it'll happen tho in future.
 
Back
Top Bottom