A note about biological sex. I am not a biologist, but I can accurately predict sex in almost every human I see. Why is this, given that some people have cross-sex identifications, and intersex conditions can be present?
We know that female= large gamete production capability, and Male= small gamete production capability. But people keep saying biological sex is so complex, and biology has ‘moved on’, because there are edge cases within categories
Is it true that we must abandon sex classifications, because there are very rare cases where biological sex isn’t immediately apparent? We know that DSDs are traumatic, complex medical conditions, often resulting in distress, infertility, and lifelong health issues
Firstly, DSDs are not a ‘justification’ for cross-sex identification. How insulting it is, when people use other humans, with complex medical needs, as a ‘conversational gotcha’ to justify their own identification. Don’t do that, please
Back to biological sex classification. But clownfish! But kelp! But little green men on undiscovered planets! No. We’re discussing mammalian sex classes, which relate to the complementary reproductive roles that stem from fusing two gametes to make a new organism
Biological sex is a fundamental fact of life, associated with complicated cultural and social pressures that we have lately called ‘gender’. Some people identify strongly with cultural sex stereotypes, basing their identity on them, claiming we all have a ‘gender identity’
We are all humans: we belong to the species ‘homo sapiens’. We were all taught that members of a species are differentiated their from members of a different species by the inability to create new offspring together, by the combination of gametes.
The use of species classification is culturally significant. All Homo sapiens on the planet have human rights: they are universal. They are also exclusive: they are not available for kelp, or clownfish, or dogs.
But... we know that (in captivity) lions and tigers have produced offspring: the liger is a huge animal, bigger than either parent species, born of a male lion and female tiger. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7… 
There are animals known as Pizzlys; offspring of Polar Bears and a Grizzly Bears. They’ve been reported in the wild, as well as in captivity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E…
So, species classification obviously has rare exceptions from the general ‘cant breed with other species’ rule. Some are more common than others, for example a mule (Male donkey, female horse) britishmulesociety.co.uk/mulesinbritain… britishmulesociety.co.uk/wp-content/upl…
Do we throw away species classification, given these rare exceptions to the general rule? Of course not. Species classification is essential for conservationists, geneticists, biologists (millions of species haven’t even been classified, yet)
Species classification is necessary for certain legal protections: for example, to identify the presence of rare species, leading to the protection of an area of land as a ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’ woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2019/03/s…
Biological sex classification is used, like species classification, to assert legal rights. The point I am making is this: biological sex classification is *more* reliable than species classification. The legal rights we have won on the basis of sex-specific risks, are ours
Everybody knows what a woman is. We were all born of one. It’s not complex, in all but the most infinitesimaly small number of cases (and those cases are traumatic, complex medical issues, not a ‘gotcha’). We have sex-based rights awarded on that basis.
If we have decided to award rights on the basis of ‘gender identity’, then this new category must be legally defined, just as ‘species’ or ‘biological sex’ have been legally defined. What we can’t do, is change the definition of ‘biological sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’
What is the objective basis for ‘gender identity’? What is the definition of identification with sex-role stereotypes, universal across human cultures? This category is not stable, or universal, and cannot be legally defined in relation to objective reality
So: we know what a woman is. We know that sex-based rights depend on the classification of sexes, and that this is more reliable than species classification. It makes as much sense to remove sex based classifications in law, as species based protections
There’s so much confusing glitter thrown at this issue, because at this moment, in this Western culture, there are people that identify with sex-role stereotypes. We all deserve human rights. They’re universal.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-right…
What we don’t have, is a universal ‘human right’ to the limited, sex-based rights won by the female sex; any more than we have the right to claim the rights of other species (or we could claim our homes as SSSIs!)
I’m not a biologist, or a lawyer. But I know what a woman is, and so do you.
P.S. I also think that the higher apes have a good case for having universal ape rights: but that’s another story.
