Predetermined?

[stickmaker]

I know (apparently)  a great deal more about biology than those British judges who recently passed down their revealed wisdom about what makes men and women. There has been no mention in the news about how their ruling deals with natural exceptions. As just one example, what about XY individuals with androgen insensitivity?

The exception tests the rule. If a rule - or law - cannot deal with exceptions it is a bad rule (or law). 

One spokesman explained that they weren't making a biological determination, simply producing a guideline for legal purposes. Okay. It's a bad guideline. 

Yeah, I know; bureaucrats want to put things in a few folders a possible. This is ridiculous. 

Comments

[kengr]

I haven't heard about that one. Too busy with Trump's exceeding misinformed executive order on the same subject.

But intersex conditions are way more complicated than AIS/CAIS. For example I found a paper on the net about a family that for several generations has had XY *females*. Definitely female because they got pregnant and gave birth!

Lord only know what genetic weirdness on the Y chromosome (or one of the others) allowed *that*.

And then there's the "usual" weirdness X0, XXY, XYY, XYYY and more. Guevodoces.

Dare I ask what "simple" but wrong idea the Brit judges went with?