This is a fantastic essay. I’m reading it post-Supreme Court judgment. I think one point you don’t mention but which might be relevant to why the UK hasn’t seen the same dynamic as the US is the very small role religion plays in people’s lives. With no Religious Right, you can’t accuse people of being from or pandering to the RR. (There are thus plenty of *accusations* of being funded by global religious right groups, which don’t hold up when the primary foe to the gender case is run by three Scottish women on crowdfunding.)
I wonder how this will play out in other countries and whether the level of religiosity will be relevant there in how well women’s rights (inc abortion and ofc voting) are defended as this stuff is pushed back.
Yes, I think that is exactly right and made a similar comment yesterday on twatter. Butler's discourse, and the whole TRA discourse, works by disciplining left wing people into line by threatening them with the religious right. She just did an interview with Owen Jones and was commenting on how there isn't a very effective GC movement in the US or in South America (which is also why in the US this issue has been very effectively taken over entirely by the religious right)... and my response was, exactly, that the reason why we have managed to mount more effective resistance is precisely because we don't have a much of a religious right to speak of...
The inhumanity of this patriarchal authoritarian regime in the U.S. towards trans people is pretty abhorrent. Feminists who care about sex-based rights have no common cause with this government - as you say, they’re not going to let us off the train to Gilead because we’re wearing adult human female t-shirts. The U.S. left is completely captured by interest groups and is, understandably, turned off by the religious natural order groups that control the gender narrative here.
“We Know What a Woman Is!!11!!” (🙄 Rah, rah; hear me roar.)
But “adult human female” certainly has some merit. Though one might suggest that it is is somewhat overly restrictive. Apropos of which, I wonder what your response was to this tweet from US “biologist” (the jury is still out) PZ Myers since it was apparently directed to you among others:
PZM: “ ‘female’ is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female.”
One might reasonably argue that he has something of point, one which more than a few other more or less reputable biologists – such as Jerry Coyne -- have also endorsed, one way or another.
Not sure if you followed much of the debate and news over the Skrmetti case before the US Supreme Court, but Justice Alito there suggested that for "protected classes" to have any utility, they have to possess something in the way of an "immutable" property that qualifies people for membership therein:
CNN: "Justice Samuel Alito, in particular, was interested in the question of whether transgender status is 'immutable.' Historically, the court has considered immutability to be a key aspect of the characteristics of a group deserving of more protection."
Gender and gender identity, of course, hardly qualify as “immutable” since the whole claim of various transactivists is that they are changing their “gender identities” – a rather subjective state at best. But, as Myers emphasizes, one might reasonably say the same about “female”. Too many people refuse to face the brute facts that “male” and “female” are NOT anything in the way of “immutable identities”, and are, by standard biological definitions, just labels for rather transitory reproductive abilities:
“Rerum cognoscere causas; Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints”
Sex (male and female) is immutable. It is about the whole body plan that integrates either a male or female reproductive system. Such a reproductive system is organised around the function of producing either small (sperm) or large (eggs) regardless of fertility at any time of life.
The differences between male and female bodies last for life and include differences in musculo-skeletal structure that impact on strength & speed, plus health conditions and much more.
Taking some opposite sex hormones or having some cosmetic surgery does not change the sex. It alters some aspects of the body, but relies on continuing to take the hormones. Surgical changes, such as vaginoplasty or phalloplasty do not turn someone into the opposite sex any more than a hysterectomy means a female is no longer a woman.
That depends entirely on how the sex categories are defined. The "judge" in the Tickle vs. Giggle case apparently wants to define it such that "male" means penis-haver and "female" means vagina-haver. More or less immutable, but little connection to more fundamental and important traits.
Your "male or female reproductive system" gets closer to the nub of the matter though it is rather vague at best. Why I've argued for "testicle-haver" and "ovary-haver". But that is NOT the way those categories are defined in biology. For examples, see this one:
Oxford English Dictionary (OED): "female, adjective;
1) Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
Finally and ICYMI, you might note this US Substack post from Erin Friday which discusses a Bill -- AB844 -- that had been put before the House or Representatives in California that is more or less the same as what you suggested:
"AB844: 'Female' means a person whose reproductive system, as determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth, naturally has, had, will, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, produced eggs, whether or not eggs are produced."
However, as mentioned, neither that one or yours is the same as standard biological definitions. A discrepancy which may cause serious problems down the road.
I think anyone who can tell the difference between a "cis woman" and a "trans woman" well enough to declare that there are "cis women" who don't produce ova knows damn well what biologically female means.
Did you read that bit about Justice Alito in the Skrmetti case?
The point is to have a definition -- IN LAW -- that specifies EXACTLY what it takes to qualify as a woman. That's the whole point of that case in Scotland.
But "female" really doesn't cut it since no feminist is prepared to accept the definitions that are more or less "holy writ" in biology. "ovary-haver" seems a solid candidate for an alternative.
Not sure if you've run across the infamous Tickle vs. Giggle case in Australia, but a "judge" there accepted that "Ms." Tickle -- with "her" brand spanking new "neovagina" -- had "changed sex" and therefore had a right to subscribe to the Giggle social media application designed ONLY for "adult human females":
Don't think women are going to make much headway until they accept and promote a definition for "woman" that doesn't conflict with the biological one for "female".
Don't think so. From the BBC article linked above.
BBC: "But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is 'changeable and not necessarily binary', ultimately dismissing Giggle’s argument."
The problem is most people -- and the Law -- haven't a clue what it takes to qualify as male and female, at least according to standard biological definitions for the sexes, Trump's EO being something of an exception.
The UK judges included since they nowhere stipulate what it takes to qualify as a "biological female". That's an empty term beyond being something acquired at birth and boils down into genitalia since that's the only observable then.
Steersman, if you don't stop cluttering up the comments here with your obsession with your peculiar problem about the defintion of sex I am going to have to block you to stop you doing it.
I would rather not have to do that.
This isn't a space made to be dominated by your niche interest. It's my substack. And this isn't what its for.
Well, it’s nice to know that you at least you check your notifications now and again. Though – given PZ Myers’ tweet which I see you didn’t address -- it’s not just my “niche interest” is it? Nor my very own “peculiar problem about the definition of sex”. While it’s nice also that you rail against the denial of “the material reality of sex”, one might reasonably argue you’re doing pretty much same thing by rejecting Myers argument, by trying to sweep it under the carpet.
I’m reminded of this rather cogent and insightful observation of yours from some time back, even if it seems somewhat badly phrased and stops well short of the goal line:
JCJ: “Because I’m going to say that what’s being concealed is the reality of sex, and the conflation of sex and gender enabled by pretending this horrendous clusterfuck is a bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood which confers some kind of privilege we’re all so jealously guarding.”
The problem is generally that, as you suggest, virtually everyone has made the sexes into “immutable identities” based on “some mythic essences”, rather than accept that they simply denote rather transitory reproductive abilities – i.e., producing large or small “reproductive cells”.
Rather many people – mostly “women” for some strange unfathomable reason ... – are quite peeved when advised that as a result of betting the farm on “adult human female” they lose their “woman” cards at menopause. Something that Kathleen Stock once thought was “mad” some six years before I tangled with you and Helen Joyce on the same principle:
You once insisted that you had “a metric shit-ton of education in the history of philosophy and feminist thought” which may well be true. But I don’t think you have much of a clue about the philosophy of science -- particularly about mechanisms in science -- which undergird and motivate the standard biological definitions that Myers, and many other biologists, champion and endorse:
Finally, one might suggest that an active discussion board is more likely to produce paying subscriptions than one that gives some evidence of being an echo chamber.
This is a fantastic essay. I’m reading it post-Supreme Court judgment. I think one point you don’t mention but which might be relevant to why the UK hasn’t seen the same dynamic as the US is the very small role religion plays in people’s lives. With no Religious Right, you can’t accuse people of being from or pandering to the RR. (There are thus plenty of *accusations* of being funded by global religious right groups, which don’t hold up when the primary foe to the gender case is run by three Scottish women on crowdfunding.)
I wonder how this will play out in other countries and whether the level of religiosity will be relevant there in how well women’s rights (inc abortion and ofc voting) are defended as this stuff is pushed back.
Yes, I think that is exactly right and made a similar comment yesterday on twatter. Butler's discourse, and the whole TRA discourse, works by disciplining left wing people into line by threatening them with the religious right. She just did an interview with Owen Jones and was commenting on how there isn't a very effective GC movement in the US or in South America (which is also why in the US this issue has been very effectively taken over entirely by the religious right)... and my response was, exactly, that the reason why we have managed to mount more effective resistance is precisely because we don't have a much of a religious right to speak of...
The inhumanity of this patriarchal authoritarian regime in the U.S. towards trans people is pretty abhorrent. Feminists who care about sex-based rights have no common cause with this government - as you say, they’re not going to let us off the train to Gilead because we’re wearing adult human female t-shirts. The U.S. left is completely captured by interest groups and is, understandably, turned off by the religious natural order groups that control the gender narrative here.
Congratulations to you and all of your British sisters. You have found the way.
“We Know What a Woman Is!!11!!” (🙄 Rah, rah; hear me roar.)
But “adult human female” certainly has some merit. Though one might suggest that it is is somewhat overly restrictive. Apropos of which, I wonder what your response was to this tweet from US “biologist” (the jury is still out) PZ Myers since it was apparently directed to you among others:
PZM: “ ‘female’ is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female.”
https://x.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
One might reasonably argue that he has something of point, one which more than a few other more or less reputable biologists – such as Jerry Coyne -- have also endorsed, one way or another.
Not sure if you followed much of the debate and news over the Skrmetti case before the US Supreme Court, but Justice Alito there suggested that for "protected classes" to have any utility, they have to possess something in the way of an "immutable" property that qualifies people for membership therein:
CNN: "Justice Samuel Alito, in particular, was interested in the question of whether transgender status is 'immutable.' Historically, the court has considered immutability to be a key aspect of the characteristics of a group deserving of more protection."
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html
Gender and gender identity, of course, hardly qualify as “immutable” since the whole claim of various transactivists is that they are changing their “gender identities” – a rather subjective state at best. But, as Myers emphasizes, one might reasonably say the same about “female”. Too many people refuse to face the brute facts that “male” and “female” are NOT anything in the way of “immutable identities”, and are, by standard biological definitions, just labels for rather transitory reproductive abilities:
“Rerum cognoscere causas; Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints”
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
Hence the justification for “adult human ovary-havers”. Of past, present, or future functionality.
Sex (male and female) is immutable. It is about the whole body plan that integrates either a male or female reproductive system. Such a reproductive system is organised around the function of producing either small (sperm) or large (eggs) regardless of fertility at any time of life.
The differences between male and female bodies last for life and include differences in musculo-skeletal structure that impact on strength & speed, plus health conditions and much more.
Taking some opposite sex hormones or having some cosmetic surgery does not change the sex. It alters some aspects of the body, but relies on continuing to take the hormones. Surgical changes, such as vaginoplasty or phalloplasty do not turn someone into the opposite sex any more than a hysterectomy means a female is no longer a woman.
> "Sex (male and female) is immutable."
That depends entirely on how the sex categories are defined. The "judge" in the Tickle vs. Giggle case apparently wants to define it such that "male" means penis-haver and "female" means vagina-haver. More or less immutable, but little connection to more fundamental and important traits.
Your "male or female reproductive system" gets closer to the nub of the matter though it is rather vague at best. Why I've argued for "testicle-haver" and "ovary-haver". But that is NOT the way those categories are defined in biology. For examples, see this one:
Oxford English Dictionary (OED): "female, adjective;
1) Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
Which is more or less the same as Trump's EO.
And these ones:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd6e8a1dd-ba5b-471d-bf6c-2bb640181177_680x292.jpeg
Finally and ICYMI, you might note this US Substack post from Erin Friday which discusses a Bill -- AB844 -- that had been put before the House or Representatives in California that is more or less the same as what you suggested:
"AB844: 'Female' means a person whose reproductive system, as determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth, naturally has, had, will, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, produced eggs, whether or not eggs are produced."
https://ourduty.substack.com/p/california-may-not-be-a-lost-cause
https://ourduty.substack.com/p/california-may-not-be-a-lost-cause/comment/104501544
However, as mentioned, neither that one or yours is the same as standard biological definitions. A discrepancy which may cause serious problems down the road.
I think anyone who can tell the difference between a "cis woman" and a "trans woman" well enough to declare that there are "cis women" who don't produce ova knows damn well what biologically female means.
Did you read that bit about Justice Alito in the Skrmetti case?
The point is to have a definition -- IN LAW -- that specifies EXACTLY what it takes to qualify as a woman. That's the whole point of that case in Scotland.
But "female" really doesn't cut it since no feminist is prepared to accept the definitions that are more or less "holy writ" in biology. "ovary-haver" seems a solid candidate for an alternative.
Not sure if you've run across the infamous Tickle vs. Giggle case in Australia, but a "judge" there accepted that "Ms." Tickle -- with "her" brand spanking new "neovagina" -- had "changed sex" and therefore had a right to subscribe to the Giggle social media application designed ONLY for "adult human females":
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0553
Don't think women are going to make much headway until they accept and promote a definition for "woman" that doesn't conflict with the biological one for "female".
The Tickle vs Giggle case relied on certificated sex as in Australian law, not biological sex.
Don't think so. From the BBC article linked above.
BBC: "But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is 'changeable and not necessarily binary', ultimately dismissing Giggle’s argument."
The problem is most people -- and the Law -- haven't a clue what it takes to qualify as male and female, at least according to standard biological definitions for the sexes, Trump's EO being something of an exception.
The UK judges included since they nowhere stipulate what it takes to qualify as a "biological female". That's an empty term beyond being something acquired at birth and boils down into genitalia since that's the only observable then.
Steersman, if you don't stop cluttering up the comments here with your obsession with your peculiar problem about the defintion of sex I am going to have to block you to stop you doing it.
I would rather not have to do that.
This isn't a space made to be dominated by your niche interest. It's my substack. And this isn't what its for.
Well, it’s nice to know that you at least you check your notifications now and again. Though – given PZ Myers’ tweet which I see you didn’t address -- it’s not just my “niche interest” is it? Nor my very own “peculiar problem about the definition of sex”. While it’s nice also that you rail against the denial of “the material reality of sex”, one might reasonably argue you’re doing pretty much same thing by rejecting Myers argument, by trying to sweep it under the carpet.
I’m reminded of this rather cogent and insightful observation of yours from some time back, even if it seems somewhat badly phrased and stops well short of the goal line:
JCJ: “Because I’m going to say that what’s being concealed is the reality of sex, and the conflation of sex and gender enabled by pretending this horrendous clusterfuck is a bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood which confers some kind of privilege we’re all so jealously guarding.”
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/15/unreasonable-ideas-a-reply-to-alison-phipps/
The problem is generally that, as you suggest, virtually everyone has made the sexes into “immutable identities” based on “some mythic essences”, rather than accept that they simply denote rather transitory reproductive abilities – i.e., producing large or small “reproductive cells”.
Rather many people – mostly “women” for some strange unfathomable reason ... – are quite peeved when advised that as a result of betting the farm on “adult human female” they lose their “woman” cards at menopause. Something that Kathleen Stock once thought was “mad” some six years before I tangled with you and Helen Joyce on the same principle:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/reality-and-illusion-being-vs-identifying
You once insisted that you had “a metric shit-ton of education in the history of philosophy and feminist thought” which may well be true. But I don’t think you have much of a clue about the philosophy of science -- particularly about mechanisms in science -- which undergird and motivate the standard biological definitions that Myers, and many other biologists, champion and endorse:
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/science-mechanisms/#toc
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
En passant and ICYMI, your “History of Sex” at Academia seems to be missing some 16 pages:
https://www.academia.edu/107356704/The_History_of_Sex
Finally, one might suggest that an active discussion board is more likely to produce paying subscriptions than one that gives some evidence of being an echo chamber.