[paul cotter (OP)]

The UK supreme court has ruled that the term "woman" refers to those with xx chromosomes. This is to be welcomed, in my opinion.

[alancalverd]

Up to a point, but it doesn't assign a noun to, e.g., Kleinfelter syndrome (XXY)  or other anomalies.

The logical concern over gender assignment is to protect those who don't have a Y chromosome, so IMHO a better definition would be reserve "woman" for the absence of Y.   Contact sports and the like can then be classified as "NonY" and "Open", so anyone can have a go in the Open category but around half the population can opt to run, fight, or whatever, in the protected NonY group.

[paul cotter (OP)]

Agreed. I phrased things wrongly- no mention was made of chromosomes, only that "woman" means a biologic woman.

[Bored chemist]

Up to a point, but it doesn't assign a noun to, e.g., Kleinfelter syndrome (XXY)  or other anomalies.

The logical concern over gender assignment is to protect those who don't have a Y chromosome, so IMHO a better definition would be reserve "woman" for the absence of Y.   Contact sports and the like can then be classified as "NonY" and "Open", so anyone can have a go in the Open category but around half the population can opt to run, fight, or whatever, in the protected NonY group.

Thanks for this illustration of why "common sense" doesn't work.

Someone who is a testosterone insensitive male has a Y chromosome but "looks female".
If they were to take part in athletics they might be tempted to cheat and take anabolic steroids.
And, if they did so, those androgens would have no effect.

So you are saying that they would only be allowed to compete against hormonally typical males in spite of being doubly disadvantaged- they produce little or no testosterone and it wouldn't help them if they took supplements.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome


Now, I have no great interest in sport but, I had a look at the Paralympics when they were televised.
It turns out that they can organise to have many different categories for competitors in order to ensure that people compete against others with similar characteristics.

Surely the Olympics can manage more than 2 or 3?

[alancalverd]

You can invent as many categories as you like, but the immediate demand is to protect the majority of the population (what we used to call women) from harm or inherent disadvantage.

One of the things you quickly learn in any sport is whether you have any chance of success, or even survival. Boxing has umpteen categories based on weight and, currently, gender, but a 100 kg tub of lard would be ill advised to fight 100kg of bone and muscle. Having played in England and never had a trial for any other First Class nation, I am fully qualified to play cricket for England, and would love to do so, but by the age of 18 it was clear that my anatomy, physiology and neurology weren't going to take me much further than the pub second team.

On the broader question of "having a go", one of my ambitions is to replace the Olympics with proper sport, where politics, nationality and amateur/professional arguments have no place, and the host isn't left with a "legacy" of debt and useless buildings. Quite simply, I hire an existing university stadium  and accommodation blocks and charge anyone 500 quid to have a go at anything they fancy. Some of the money will be set aside as prizes, and some to defray the travelling costs of kids who have talent (we'll set realistic qualifying times etc) but can't afford to travel. Obviously, some known Olympians and the like will earn a lot of cash, but Joe and Jo Bloggs can bask in the memory of having competed with the best, and now and again a complete unknown will blow everyone away and put some serious loot in the bank without shining glory on a corrupt dictatorship.   

[Bored chemist]

You can invent as many categories as you like, but the immediate demand is to protect the majority of the population (what we used to call women) from harm or inherent disadvantage.
...

 by the age of 18 it was clear that my anatomy, physiology and neurology weren't going to take me much further than the pub second team.
 

Is "my anatomy, physiology and neurology weren't going to take me much further than the pub second team.my anatomy, physiology and neurology weren't going to take me much further than the pub second team." the sort of " inherent disadvantage" from which women should be protected?

I can't think of a better way to protect people (men or women) from harm  than ensuring that they do not have to compete against those with such an overwhelming advantage that it is likely that the contest would harm them.

Many contact sports have already grasped this and have weight (and age) categories.
Professional boxers are permitted to fight "above their weight". Similar rules could be prepared for a more complex categorisation.

[Petrochemicals]

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves, they have ruled that it relates back to the 1976 act which refers to "biological sex", this is taken by the court as "sex at birth".

It probably OKs people like castor semenya for sporting activities.

The court also concludes the legislation is a mess and should be reworked, so I am not sure of the courts true position regarding this matter.

I believe India has 3 genders.

[alancalverd]

Is "my anatomy, physiology and neurology weren't going to take me much further than the pub second team.my anatomy, physiology and neurology weren't going to take me much further than the pub second team." the sort of " inherent disadvantage" from which women should be protected?

Anatomy and physiology, yes. Women's cricket, soccer and rugby are quantitatively different from men's sport at the professional level, and soccer and rugby, at least, are a lot more entertaining.

Neurology, no, as far as I can see. AFAIK there are very few female chess masters, but air sport contests and records, for example, are now unisex. The Federation Aeronautique Internationale decided back in the 1970s to abolish women's records by stealth, revoking each category whenever the existing men's record was beaten by a woman. Not sure how the books read right now, but being smaller, lighter, and consuming less oxygen probably confers an unfair advantage!