We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
This drew a sharp response from solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who said such a fluid concept of man or woman would render several laws unworkable, which differentiate a biological man from a biological woman....
"Even in SM Act, the legislative intent has throughout been on a relationship between a biological male and a biological female."
The CJI said, "It is a very important value judgment you are making. You are saying that the very notion of a biological man or a biological woman is absolute.
"The SG replied, "Biological man means a biological man. It is not a notion."
The CJI said, "It is a notion. There is no absolute concept of a man or absolute concept of a woman at all. Biological definition is not what your genitals are. It's far more complex, that is the point. Even when the SM Act says man or a woman, the very notion of a man or woman is not absolute based on what genitals you have."
The SG said, "Biological man means what genitals he has."
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/theres-no-absolute-concept-of-man-or-woman-says-cji-chandrachud/articleshow/99597591.cms?from=mdr
His is a JNU professor. Bio below. His critique is interesting because he supports same-sex marriage but has attacked the CJI's view on biological sex. He is essentially a centre-right libertarian, similar to Christopher Hitchens. On Twitter he often attacks the Congress, Left, wokeism and Islam.
So I think we have the following camps now re same-sex marriage:https://twitter.com/ARanganathan72/status/1649435999116705795
https://www.jnu.ac.in/content/aranganathan
Qualifications
1. 1992 B.Sc. (Hons) Chemistry, St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi, India
2. 1994 B.A. (Tripos) Natural Sciences, Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, UK
3. 1998 Ph.D. (Biochemistry), Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, UK
4. 1998 M.A. (Honorary), Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, UK
Experience
- 1998 - 1999 Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, UK
- 1999 - 2015 Research Scientist, Recombinant Gene Products Group, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), New Delhi, India
- 2015 - Associate Professor, Special Centre for Molecular Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Awards & Honours
- Young Scientist, World Economic Forum, for the New Champions Summit, 2012
- Young Scientist Medal of the Indian National Science Academy, 2007
- Young Scientist Medal of the UDCT, India, 2006
- Associate Fellow, Indian Academy of Sciences, 2003-06
- Pembroke College Cambridge Scholarship, 1995
- Cambridge Nehru Centenary Fellowship, 1992
-
LI should allow discussions on this. The CJI has come under criticism from some highly educated people for this remark, including one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case.
Furthermore, this is one of the most burning legal topics in the West right now. There are raging debates on who should be allowed to compete in women’s sporting categories, who should be allowed to live in women’s dorms, use women’s toilets and changing rooms etc.
A proposed bill in Scotland (in conformity with the CJI’s views) did not pass and there was a campaign mounted against Nicola Sturgeon by J.K. Rowling. In England, a few days ago, Rishi, Sunak said that a person with a penis cannot be a woman.
So, I don’t know why LI is not permitting this discussion.
'Biological man' is defined by the Y chromosome. It is not and will never be possible to make a biological man a biological woman. The defining feature of the female of a mammal species, indeed the way that a biologist would classify one kind as female and another as male, is the ability to give birth. That is THE criteria.
Men who have chemically castrated themselves with hormones that give them breasts and make them appear feminine, or even mutilated and cosmetically reconstructed their nether genitals, are still men in all meaningful capacities.
A researcher who finds the remains of such an individual a millenia hence is bound to conclude that the subject was male, and move on, as that is the truth - and there is only that one truth.
And the other definition you give - the "ability to give birth" - doesn't quite work either, as that makes women who are infertile for various reasons, not "women".
Sure, it's a complicated and confusing issue with very strong opinions, but is there a need to muddy the debate with unequivocal statements of hard truths that are not?
Intersex or sex chromosomal abberations are anomalies, and numerically insignificant ones at that. Genital anomalies are anomalies.
Anomalies are not considered relevant when making general statements that establish a principle or define something. For instance, "humans can see xyz colors" is a hard biological truth regardless of the fact that some people are colorblind. Colorblind people have an impairment, a mild disability. Their condition is not representative of the general human condition.
Likewise, when I talked of women being able to birth this is what I meant. Assume a new species of mammal is discovered. How does a researcher identity the male and the female of the species? The female will have mammary glands, a uterus, the ability to birth, heat cycles, etc. Their might be small natural anomalies. For instance, platypus lay eggs instead of giving birth. Regardless, the female platypus lactate.
Colour is not actually biological. If you study physics or some neurobilogy, there is no universal definition or reason that says XYZ on the electromagnetic spectrum is the colour green. Green or other colours are an entirely human-created and in many cases even cultural inventions: https://knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2022/science-of-color-perception
And by some estimates, 8% of men are colour blind, and "India has the highest number of colorblind people population in the world with 70 million being colorblind": https://www.colorblindguide.com/post/colorblind-people-population-live-counter
That's a minority but it's just as representative of the variety in the human condition and species as many other differences, like skin or hair colour, sexual preferences, how many male or female sex hormones are produced, the expression of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, etc.
And when it comes to animals, you're way off: there are a huge number of animal species that are hermaphroditic, reproduce asexually, and more surprising still: https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/nature/article/2016/09/29/7-gender-bending-animals-animal-kingdom .
And if it were a biological impossibility or an anomaly as you imply, then there wouldn't be 0.02%–0.05% people born with "ambiguous genitals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex . That's at least 120m people in the world. Those are 120m real people who do not fall into your 'if it has X genitals it is X sex' category, and it also ignores those who might be born with non-ambiguous genitals but may have hormonal levels that don't classically match up, or chromosomes that are non-standard, etc.
Also, your platypus lactation example is terrible. Human males can lactate, provided they have enough female sex hormones or under other circumstances: https://oddfeed.net/can-men-lactate/
Therefore, if you imply that biology has 'hard truths' like physics or mathematics, please study more biology: organisms built with DNA are enormously varied and complex.
Just my one bit, even physics doesn't have hard truths or atleast we don't know enough to say that whether some theory/law is a hard truth. For instances theory of relativity doesn't explains the events inside a black hole. It doesn't work inside a black hole. Though it's hard to say whether there are hard truths in mathematics. I think they are. That's a wonder of maths. It's certain unlike human experience. Or perhaps human experiences need not be certain at first place 🌈-: law should respect that and allow freedom
From an Islamist perspective, it's obviously a strict no.
From a materialist perspective, it's again a strict no.
From a patriarchal perspective, it's again a strict no.
From a Sankhya perspective, it's yes. This is because an individual deciding to act like a woman after chopping off their genitals is their exercise of free-will and everyone else saying to the contrary is oppressing their free will.
Don't normalise or trivialise self-harm and delusion. It is not normal to permanently chemically castrate oneself. It is not normal or acceptable to block puberty and sterelize minors. It is not normal to believe oneself to be something one simply isn't. It is not normal or healthy to mutilate ones genitals or breasts. These are screaming signs of immense psychological suffering and strong indicators of extensive past abuse and trauma of a sexual and violent nature, often with genetic underpinnings. These poor souls need real research, diagnosis and treatment - not 'affirmation'. They need about as much affirmation as a schizophrenic.
Society and polity have a legitimate interest in preserving themselves by preserving their members - the people. There is a further legitimate interest to protect one's near and dear ones (especially minors, but not just minors) from being persuaded (either actively or passively via normalization) into such self-harm, delusion and permanent defacement of the body.
But according to you, all those people are mentally ill because they choose to or have to modify the body they are born with?
As a consenting adult, should I not be allowed to do what I want with my body? What right should you have to tell me in a society that respects individual freedom, if a surgery I choose is medically safe, whether I can have it or not?
Or is it just because you don't understand / mistrust / hate trans people?
And how do you explain that trans people have pretty much always existed in all societies where documentation exists, and in some such as ancient India they were respected and venerated? https://theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/a-brief-history-of-hijra-indias-third-gender/ Have humans (and ancient Indians even!), always been swayed by the wokes?