Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
ian, your comments here have been disingenuous, and you have failed to honestly and logically address the issues I have raised, giving the distinct impression your main aim in engaging here is to antagonise and irritate, not to genuinely learn or understand. So I'm now giving up on any further attempts trying to communicate with you.
Indeed I have written my comments not for you, but for other future readers of this comments section.
PS and please don't pretend that barging into a Catholic seminary is even remotely analogous to someone wanting to take a piss in toilet: if a Jewish person converts to Catholicism they will be admitted to seminaries, whereas under your "gender critical" ideology you would NEVER admit a trans or intersex person into what you dictate is the 'wrong' changing room or bog!
Further "When it comes to attending a church service, many people might wonder if they are welcome to simply walk in off the street. The short answer is: yes! Most churches are open to visitors and newcomers, regardless of their background or beliefs."
Indeed you advocate for PERMANENTLY and LEGALLY forcing the exclusion of 0.5% of the UK population from enjoying the same freedoms and legal protections enjoyed by the remaining 99.5%, based upon an anti-scientific ideology [that "biological sex" is binary, thus ignoring intersex people] and fear mongering based upon a tiny sample of criminals already in prisons, convicted for crimes far worse than pissing or changing in the 'wrong' room.
Further still: "Transgender individuals show brain-structural alterations that differ from their biological sex as well as their perceived gender."
"These findings add support to the notion that the underlying brain anatomy in transgender people is shifted away from their biological sex towards their gender identity."
The law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions. like disordered sexual development. For the vast majority of the population, if someone with XY chromosomes and normal physiology, goes through puberty, then there are permanent mental and physiological changes that cannot be changed no matter how much surgery or hormone treatment are given later. There should be no question of them entering female prisons, changing rooms, or competing as women in sport,
You define and support women ~vs~ men discrimination by writing: "entering female prisons, changing rooms, or competing as women in sport" but what about trans men? Are they OK in your definition?
Then you declare: "The law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions" but what about this UK law: "Homicide Act 1957 - Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - one of three special defences which exist solely for the offence of murder" on grounds of "An abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition". In the UK the total number of adult offenders sentenced for manslaughter offences is between 150 and 250 per year between 2006 & 2016. So under your declaration the Homicide Act 1957 should be struck off the UK legal statute register as "The law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions"?
You are confusing mental illness, be it a psychosis or whatever, with a voluntary choice by a fully competent adult, ie those who elect to claim a different gender. Voluntary choices come with consequences, and those do not include insisting on overriding the rights of women (ie XX) to elect to have safe spaces away from those with male (XY) physiology.
".. but what about trans men? Are they OK in your definition?" They are in a slightly different position, and trans men (ie originally women) likely not to pose much less a risk to men, as trans men can do to women.
No, I am not confusing mental illness. You wrote in your first comment: "rare medical conditions" without restricting to "mental illness". Hence why I compared "mental illness" as a defence in murder trials, to ridicule your declaration that "the law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions".
But now you dodge the weakness of your own declaration, by accusing people who have been excluded by the Supreme Court from being a member of one of two "biological sexes" of making "voluntary choices" and accusing them of "overriding the rights of women (ie XX) to elect to have safe spaces away from those with male (XY) physiology."
But who are you to say it's "a voluntary choice" about someone's genotype? Let me put it clearly for you: MANY OF THEM WERE BORN THAT WAY ! Here's the link again, I suggest you read and honestly absorb it this time.
Next you ask us to accept blatant discrimination by writing that trans men are "likely not to pose much less a risk to men, as trans men can do to women" !
Instead why don't you please give us references showing how many criminal cases or police arrests of trans women and trans men "posing a risk" have there been in the UK? That way you can discover there have been hardly any at all, and certainly far fewer than for example the annual murder rate of between 150 - 250 in the UK.
The 2023 Police Powers and Procedures: Stop and Search and Arrest (PPPSSA) statistics surprisingly revealed:
“Both males and females were most commonly arrested for violence against the person offences, accounting for 44% of all male arrests and 56% of all female arrests. This was followed by arrests for theft offences (13% for both males and females)."
Here are some some figures: based on the Census of 2021 and HMPPS data, as of 2021, 0.078% of transgender and non-binary population of England and Wales was incarcerated, vis-a-vis 0.314% of cis male population and 0.013% of cis female population. In other words trans and intersex people pose LESS criminal "risk" of harm than XX and XY people.
Well it should be obvious to anyone that I meant the law as applied in this instance to voluntary choices by competent individuals. Mental illness is not a valid comparison here.
The sage publication you mention (which i did look at) is not a scientific publication, but a house journal advocating a certain point of view.
The essential basic common sense issue is the right to have same sex spaces where those having passed via male puberty are not allowed in. This is their right and cannot be trumped by those who wish to do otherwise
Ian write: "those having passed via male puberty are not allowed in" but how would you know? Many trans women and men are invisible to the naked eye. Presumably then you are advocating that every person who enters a "same sex space" must be genetically tested? But what about those who have the following?
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
Again you discriminate failing to mention trans men. If someone had facial hair, and a deep voice (after taking testosterone for a few months), if they had a womb, or wide hips, or a vagina, would you let them into a men's only space? Or a women's only space? Or tell them to F*** off?
Or are you advocating everyone must undergo an MRI scan to determine if they have a uterus? Or carry around a medical certificate listing what arbitrary phenotypes they posses? And then let a sports club manager etc. decide what changing room to admit somebody into?
Please ian, take a moment to realise the ridiculous corner or confusion and complications you advocate for, by your blind acceptance of the anti-scientific mantra that "sex in humans is binary".
ian writes "The essential basic common sense issue is the right to have same sex spaces".
BUT until we can agree on what "sex" means there is no "basic common sense" and thus you simply appeal to the most ignorant shrieks of the most stupid in the crowd.
ian writes: "The sage publication you mention (which i did look at) is not a scientific publication" but this is shooting the messenger a basic logical fallacy. Instead you should address the message. But I guess the message - that "biological sex is not binary" would disrupt your discriminatory world view thereby causing you too much anxiety and cognitive dissonance.
Here is the about page description of Sage, which clearly disputes your false claim that it's "not a scientific publication":
"The mission of Sage and our journals program is to build bridges to knowledge. Our portfolio of more than 1,100 journals, including over 200 gold open access journals, and 400 society partners, allows us to help researchers, educators, institutions, and our society partners, shape the future. As an independent organization, we are free to think long-term, free to do more, and free to work together to create lasting relationships that transform and advance knowledge."
ian writes: "it should be obvious to anyone that I meant the law as applied in this instance to voluntary choices by competent individuals" but you didn't write that in your first message here, you wrote "rare medical conditions".
Well we have had an interesting discussion, and have made our views known. My essential points are that there are men XY, women XX, a small number of those with genetic and endocrine abnormalities, and those who wish elect themselves to some other gender. Laws have to cater for the majority case, who may wish to define themself by a certain characteristic. We cannot have the tail wagging the dog by trampling over the rights of larger groups just because they wish to, and discrimination cannot be claimed just because other groups do not wish your presence.
What does "biological sex" mean? Let's investigate.
The word "sex" has two different meanings:-
a) the act of reproduction, which is binary, and
b) the genotype / phenotype of a particular individual, which has multiple possibilities e.g. intersex and Disorders of sex development (DSDs) etc..
As such the supreme court and all the "gender critical" ideologues have failed to appreciate that by confusing these meanings of the word "sex" they have arrived at an incorrect, deeply discriminatory, anti-scientific view, and an unnecessarily emotionally charged misunderstanding of the term "biological sex" or "biological women".
In other words when defined correctly taking into account the published scientific research (on the act of reproduction AND the genotype / phenotype of a particular individual) "biological sex" is manifestly a NON BINARY phenomenon, rendering the idea that ALL humans must fit into either that of a "biological woman" or that of a "biological man" ridiculous.
As such, "gender identity" (according to the scientists who have researched and published on the phenomenon of "gender identity") is thus axiomatically embedded in the NON BINARY spectrum of "biological sex" when we take all humans into account.
Other cultures have acknowledged the scientific reality that sex in humans is not binary without imploding. India has a long history of recognising a third gender – Hijras were well-respected and revered in ancient India, and since 2014 legally recognised in India.
This supreme court ruling happened thanks to a fringe, radicalised group, For Women Scotland (FWS) fronted by women and delivered thanks to men: the group's lawyers, supporters, and (beyond JK Rowling) its funders too.
For Women Scotland (FWS) is a Scottish campaign group that opposes proposed reforms allowing individuals to change their recorded sex in legal documents by means of self-declaration. The group campaigns against changes to transgender rights and has been described as a "gender-critical feminist group", as trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and by Pink News as anti-trans.
The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.
The judgment goes out of its way to give special thanks to Ben Cooper KC - acting on behalf of Sex Matters, who were allowed to intervene in the case - stating that he “gave focus and structure to the argument” that sex should be given its ‘biological meaning’. Cooper has previously acted on behalf of gender critical activists Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey.
This supreme court ruling simplistically defines ‘biological sex’ as “the sex of a person at birth”. This means, presumably, sex as initially recorded on one’s birth certificate - a matter of documentation and presumption, rather than actual biology.
The NHS clearly exposes this supreme court ruling as anti-scientific claptrap: Differences in sex development (DSD) is a group of rare conditions involving genes, hormones and reproductive organs, including genitals. It means a person's sex development is different to most other people's. Some people have XY (male) chromosomes, but their external genitals may develop in the usual way for girls or boys. Some people have a chromosome pattern other than the usual XY or XX. They may have one X chromosome (XO), or they may have an extra chromosome (XXY). Their internal and external sex organs can be either male or female, but they may not go through a full physical development at puberty. For example, a child with female sex organs may not start having periods. Some people with a very rare type of DSD have both ovarian and testicular tissue (sometimes one ovary and one testis). Their genitals may appear female or male or could look different from either.
ian, your comments here have been disingenuous, and you have failed to honestly and logically address the issues I have raised, giving the distinct impression your main aim in engaging here is to antagonise and irritate, not to genuinely learn or understand. So I'm now giving up on any further attempts trying to communicate with you.
Indeed I have written my comments not for you, but for other future readers of this comments section.
PS and please don't pretend that barging into a Catholic seminary is even remotely analogous to someone wanting to take a piss in toilet: if a Jewish person converts to Catholicism they will be admitted to seminaries, whereas under your "gender critical" ideology you would NEVER admit a trans or intersex person into what you dictate is the 'wrong' changing room or bog!
Further "When it comes to attending a church service, many people might wonder if they are welcome to simply walk in off the street. The short answer is: yes! Most churches are open to visitors and newcomers, regardless of their background or beliefs."
https://westernchurch.net/churches/casual-church-visit-can-i-just-walk-into-a-church/
Indeed you advocate for PERMANENTLY and LEGALLY forcing the exclusion of 0.5% of the UK population from enjoying the same freedoms and legal protections enjoyed by the remaining 99.5%, based upon an anti-scientific ideology [that "biological sex" is binary, thus ignoring intersex people] and fear mongering based upon a tiny sample of criminals already in prisons, convicted for crimes far worse than pissing or changing in the 'wrong' room.
Further still: "Transgender individuals show brain-structural alterations that differ from their biological sex as well as their perceived gender."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3
"These findings add support to the notion that the underlying brain anatomy in transgender people is shifted away from their biological sex towards their gender identity."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/
The law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions. like disordered sexual development. For the vast majority of the population, if someone with XY chromosomes and normal physiology, goes through puberty, then there are permanent mental and physiological changes that cannot be changed no matter how much surgery or hormone treatment are given later. There should be no question of them entering female prisons, changing rooms, or competing as women in sport,
You define and support women ~vs~ men discrimination by writing: "entering female prisons, changing rooms, or competing as women in sport" but what about trans men? Are they OK in your definition?
Then you declare: "The law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions" but what about this UK law: "Homicide Act 1957 - Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - one of three special defences which exist solely for the offence of murder" on grounds of "An abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition". In the UK the total number of adult offenders sentenced for manslaughter offences is between 150 and 250 per year between 2006 & 2016. So under your declaration the Homicide Act 1957 should be struck off the UK legal statute register as "The law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions"?
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-statistical-bulletin.pdf
You are confusing mental illness, be it a psychosis or whatever, with a voluntary choice by a fully competent adult, ie those who elect to claim a different gender. Voluntary choices come with consequences, and those do not include insisting on overriding the rights of women (ie XX) to elect to have safe spaces away from those with male (XY) physiology.
".. but what about trans men? Are they OK in your definition?" They are in a slightly different position, and trans men (ie originally women) likely not to pose much less a risk to men, as trans men can do to women.
No, I am not confusing mental illness. You wrote in your first comment: "rare medical conditions" without restricting to "mental illness". Hence why I compared "mental illness" as a defence in murder trials, to ridicule your declaration that "the law cannot be based on what are rare medical conditions".
But now you dodge the weakness of your own declaration, by accusing people who have been excluded by the Supreme Court from being a member of one of two "biological sexes" of making "voluntary choices" and accusing them of "overriding the rights of women (ie XX) to elect to have safe spaces away from those with male (XY) physiology."
But who are you to say it's "a voluntary choice" about someone's genotype? Let me put it clearly for you: MANY OF THEM WERE BORN THAT WAY ! Here's the link again, I suggest you read and honestly absorb it this time.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2470289718803639
Next you ask us to accept blatant discrimination by writing that trans men are "likely not to pose much less a risk to men, as trans men can do to women" !
Instead why don't you please give us references showing how many criminal cases or police arrests of trans women and trans men "posing a risk" have there been in the UK? That way you can discover there have been hardly any at all, and certainly far fewer than for example the annual murder rate of between 150 - 250 in the UK.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=+how+many+criminal+cases+or+police+arrests+of+trans+women+and+trans+men+%22posing+a+risk%22+have+there+been+in+the+UK%3F&ia=chat
The 2023 Police Powers and Procedures: Stop and Search and Arrest (PPPSSA) statistics surprisingly revealed:
“Both males and females were most commonly arrested for violence against the person offences, accounting for 44% of all male arrests and 56% of all female arrests. This was followed by arrests for theft offences (13% for both males and females)."
Here are some some figures: based on the Census of 2021 and HMPPS data, as of 2021, 0.078% of transgender and non-binary population of England and Wales was incarcerated, vis-a-vis 0.314% of cis male population and 0.013% of cis female population. In other words trans and intersex people pose LESS criminal "risk" of harm than XX and XY people.
https://translucent.org.uk/transgender-people-crime-and-prisons/
Well it should be obvious to anyone that I meant the law as applied in this instance to voluntary choices by competent individuals. Mental illness is not a valid comparison here.
The sage publication you mention (which i did look at) is not a scientific publication, but a house journal advocating a certain point of view.
The essential basic common sense issue is the right to have same sex spaces where those having passed via male puberty are not allowed in. This is their right and cannot be trumped by those who wish to do otherwise
Ian write: "those having passed via male puberty are not allowed in" but how would you know? Many trans women and men are invisible to the naked eye. Presumably then you are advocating that every person who enters a "same sex space" must be genetically tested? But what about those who have the following?
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/
Again you discriminate failing to mention trans men. If someone had facial hair, and a deep voice (after taking testosterone for a few months), if they had a womb, or wide hips, or a vagina, would you let them into a men's only space? Or a women's only space? Or tell them to F*** off?
Or are you advocating everyone must undergo an MRI scan to determine if they have a uterus? Or carry around a medical certificate listing what arbitrary phenotypes they posses? And then let a sports club manager etc. decide what changing room to admit somebody into?
Please ian, take a moment to realise the ridiculous corner or confusion and complications you advocate for, by your blind acceptance of the anti-scientific mantra that "sex in humans is binary".
ian writes "The essential basic common sense issue is the right to have same sex spaces".
BUT until we can agree on what "sex" means there is no "basic common sense" and thus you simply appeal to the most ignorant shrieks of the most stupid in the crowd.
ian writes: "The sage publication you mention (which i did look at) is not a scientific publication" but this is shooting the messenger a basic logical fallacy. Instead you should address the message. But I guess the message - that "biological sex is not binary" would disrupt your discriminatory world view thereby causing you too much anxiety and cognitive dissonance.
Here is the about page description of Sage, which clearly disputes your false claim that it's "not a scientific publication":
"The mission of Sage and our journals program is to build bridges to knowledge. Our portfolio of more than 1,100 journals, including over 200 gold open access journals, and 400 society partners, allows us to help researchers, educators, institutions, and our society partners, shape the future. As an independent organization, we are free to think long-term, free to do more, and free to work together to create lasting relationships that transform and advance knowledge."
ian writes: "it should be obvious to anyone that I meant the law as applied in this instance to voluntary choices by competent individuals" but you didn't write that in your first message here, you wrote "rare medical conditions".
Well we have had an interesting discussion, and have made our views known. My essential points are that there are men XY, women XX, a small number of those with genetic and endocrine abnormalities, and those who wish elect themselves to some other gender. Laws have to cater for the majority case, who may wish to define themself by a certain characteristic. We cannot have the tail wagging the dog by trampling over the rights of larger groups just because they wish to, and discrimination cannot be claimed just because other groups do not wish your presence.
What does "biological sex" mean? Let's investigate.
The word "sex" has two different meanings:-
a) the act of reproduction, which is binary, and
b) the genotype / phenotype of a particular individual, which has multiple possibilities e.g. intersex and Disorders of sex development (DSDs) etc..
As such the supreme court and all the "gender critical" ideologues have failed to appreciate that by confusing these meanings of the word "sex" they have arrived at an incorrect, deeply discriminatory, anti-scientific view, and an unnecessarily emotionally charged misunderstanding of the term "biological sex" or "biological women".
In other words when defined correctly taking into account the published scientific research (on the act of reproduction AND the genotype / phenotype of a particular individual) "biological sex" is manifestly a NON BINARY phenomenon, rendering the idea that ALL humans must fit into either that of a "biological woman" or that of a "biological man" ridiculous.
As such, "gender identity" (according to the scientists who have researched and published on the phenomenon of "gender identity") is thus axiomatically embedded in the NON BINARY spectrum of "biological sex" when we take all humans into account.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2470289718803639
Other cultures have acknowledged the scientific reality that sex in humans is not binary without imploding. India has a long history of recognising a third gender – Hijras were well-respected and revered in ancient India, and since 2014 legally recognised in India.
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2018/10/29/indias-relationship-with-the-third-gender/
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/busting-myths-about-sex-and-gender/
Native American cultures for thousands of years before Europeans murdered most of them encouraged their children to chose their own gender roles.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Native+American+has+a+third+gender&t=ffab&ia=web
This supreme court ruling happened thanks to a fringe, radicalised group, For Women Scotland (FWS) fronted by women and delivered thanks to men: the group's lawyers, supporters, and (beyond JK Rowling) its funders too.
For Women Scotland (FWS) is a Scottish campaign group that opposes proposed reforms allowing individuals to change their recorded sex in legal documents by means of self-declaration. The group campaigns against changes to transgender rights and has been described as a "gender-critical feminist group", as trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and by Pink News as anti-trans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Women_Scotland
The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.
The judgment goes out of its way to give special thanks to Ben Cooper KC - acting on behalf of Sex Matters, who were allowed to intervene in the case - stating that he “gave focus and structure to the argument” that sex should be given its ‘biological meaning’. Cooper has previously acted on behalf of gender critical activists Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey.
https://www.wearequeeraf.com/understand-the-lgbtqia-news-supreme-court-ruling-changes-the-landscape-for-trans-rights-in-the-uk/
This supreme court ruling simplistically defines ‘biological sex’ as “the sex of a person at birth”. This means, presumably, sex as initially recorded on one’s birth certificate - a matter of documentation and presumption, rather than actual biology.
The NHS clearly exposes this supreme court ruling as anti-scientific claptrap: Differences in sex development (DSD) is a group of rare conditions involving genes, hormones and reproductive organs, including genitals. It means a person's sex development is different to most other people's. Some people have XY (male) chromosomes, but their external genitals may develop in the usual way for girls or boys. Some people have a chromosome pattern other than the usual XY or XX. They may have one X chromosome (XO), or they may have an extra chromosome (XXY). Their internal and external sex organs can be either male or female, but they may not go through a full physical development at puberty. For example, a child with female sex organs may not start having periods. Some people with a very rare type of DSD have both ovarian and testicular tissue (sometimes one ovary and one testis). Their genitals may appear female or male or could look different from either.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/differences-in-sex-development/