• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
That rather depends what you consider to be a bad outcome. I suspect your views differ considerably from mine. You wish to be able to define sex as whatever happens to be useful to you.
I've already made that explicit. But no, it's not really about what's useful to me, but what's useful to us (ideally). Legal definitions are, ultimately, just constituent to rules. The rule is what matters, not the definition.

My passport records my sex is male, so does my birth certificate. If the basis for those records is my biological sex then I would have incontrovertible evidence that the record was incorrect if either stated otherwise so it could be changed - and so would you.
Did you notice that you're talking about a difference in outcomes?

And 'incontrovertible'? Lol.

(Also, I'm in America. We don't have passports.)

It seems you consider the law to be entirely based on the overall wishes of society with absolutely no reference to scientific fact. Bizarre.
No. I'm saying that the law is different from science. Like I already said, I want the law to be informed by science.

The people who want the biological definition to be the legal definition are making exactly the mistake they accuse others of--confusing gender with sex.
 
Last edited:
I've already made that explicit. But no, it's not really about what's useful to me, but what's useful to us (ideally). Legal definitions are, ultimately, just constituent to rules. The rule is what matters, not the definition.
Even if the rule bears no relationship to the facts...
Did you notice that you're talking about a difference in outcomes?

And 'incontrovertible'? Lol.

The outcome would be the same - I'm male, but the record was corrected.

No. I'm saying that the law is different from science. Like I already said, I want the law to be informed by science.

Your statement implies that the law should ignore the science if the science is inconvenient... presumably due to the rise of unscientific activism?
The people who want the biological definition to be the legal definition are making exactly the mistake they accuse others of--confusing gender with sex.

No, the people who want the biological definition of sex to be the legal definition are those who want a stable foundation for the law, not a foundation based on the sands of imagination and activism.
 
We can hope that it will be informed by science, but thinking you can just grab a definition from science and plop it into a lawbook and get good results is just naive.

Alternatively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill :cool:

It is always true, everywhere, that the law is entirely a function of social facts. It's impossible for it to be otherwise.

There is a particular debate in the UK about whether it needs to be clarified that sex in a law means biological sex. Context is that it has always been assumed that sex in law meant biological sex, until a recent ruling in a court case (which may be appealed) meant that it might not.

EDIT:
For more details see

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/michael-foran

In brief, for those legal purposes where sex matters, it’s biological sex that the law recognises. This was affirmed in both Bellinger v Bellinger [2002] 2 AC 467 and A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2004] UKHL 21 as the correct position in domestic law.
 
Last edited:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/anatomy-of-a-scientific-scandal

The paper “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” has now been retracted by Springer Nature after a campaign by trans rights activists. The reason given is that "the participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article."

Unfortunately, a cursory skim of papers published by Springer revealed at least 19 other papers with the same problem, none of which were retracted.

More details at the link.

I've been following this saga. If Springer doesn't retrospectively retract other articles on the same technicality, they are rather blatantly exposing their willingness to censor data that doesn't fit an ideological narrative. A large amount of data favouring the activist's narrative is mined from surveys where participants did not give explicit consent for publication in a journal.
 
And right on cue a 14 year old girl is being aggressively affirmed to change her sex in a New Zealand state school.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/chris...students-pronouns/WFGT2FVSSNGGDGY4ZEQ5U2E74I/

This means chest binders, sterilization and breast removal.
As though a 14 year old knows she can't be a happy lesbian or never wants to be a biomum.

This is rife in this dismal country.
I can say the story reaches heavily into "pronouns" .

I have no truck with Christian views being helpful here, but would cite the hypocratic oath as being mortally breached by the scoundrels treating this hapless kid.

You think it is up to teacher to decide what name to use for a kid? :jaw-dropp

From that article it is the 14 year old that comes across as reasonable and mature.

Since this is meant to be because of his Christian beliefs I presume he also tells kids with divorced parents that their parents are sinful? Or if they remarried explained that he won't use their new family surname? Or any of the other myriad of sins Christianity has? Or is it just in regards to the trans issue?
 
I sometimes, occasionally, dip into this apparently never-ending thread. Series of threads. Which is not meant as a dismissive observation, I think the arguments both sides put down make for interesting reading, when one happens to look in; and, taken in small doses, the back-and-forth sniping can be entertaining, as well!

Me, I'm undecided, really. Earlier on, when there was actually a trans person commenting here, I found myself in her favor, given that here was an actual person who's putting herself out, and all she's asking is we refer to her as a 'she'. So that it seemed somewhat perverse not to accede to her wish. But, and like I said, in the abstract, I'd say I'm undecided. Both sides make compelling enough arguments!

So anyway, I was generally wondering what exactly all of this hoo-haa actually amounts to. How many people actually are trans? No doubt the seasoned debaters on this subject are well aware of this stat, but I was not; and so I looked it up: and apparently the number is less than a percentage point! (Link: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender-population-by-state)

That's such a small number, that I'd suggest that, regardless of the merits of the arguments on either side, that tiny number itself makes an argument for accommodation of these folks. Half a percentage point overall, I mean to say! (Although yes, I agree, the argument some make, that there are, or might be, predators out there who misuse the self-ID route in order to, well, get into spaces where they've no business entering, does make sense; and I've no counter-argument to that; like I said I'm undecided on the question. Just, the tiny percentage itself, it seems to me, makes an argument for accommodation these people, regardless of other, more substantial arguments, on either side of the question.)
 
I sometimes, occasionally, dip into this apparently never-ending thread. Series of threads. Which is not meant as a dismissive observation, I think the arguments both sides put down make for interesting reading, when one happens to look in; and, taken in small doses, the back-and-forth sniping can be entertaining, as well!

Me, I'm undecided, really. Earlier on, when there was actually a trans person commenting here, I found myself in her favor, given that here was an actual person who's putting herself out, and all she's asking is we refer to her as a 'she'. So that it seemed somewhat perverse not to accede to her wish. But, and like I said, in the abstract, I'd say I'm undecided. Both sides make compelling enough arguments!

So anyway, I was generally wondering what exactly all of this hoo-haa actually amounts to. How many people actually are trans? No doubt the seasoned debaters on this subject are well aware of this stat, but I was not; and so I looked it up: and apparently the number is less than a percentage point! (Link: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender-population-by-state)

That's such a small number, that I'd suggest that, regardless of the merits of the arguments on either side, that tiny number itself makes an argument for accommodation of these folks. Half a percentage point overall, I mean to say! (Although yes, I agree, the argument some make, that there are, or might be, predators out there who misuse the self-ID route in order to, well, get into spaces where they've no business entering, does make sense; and I've no counter-argument to that; like I said I'm undecided on the question. Just, the tiny percentage itself, it seems to me, makes an argument for accommodation these people, regardless of other, more substantial arguments, on either side of the question.)

To pick an issue I think is extremely important, that fraction of a percent of transwomen who went through male puberty and are subsequently allowed to compete in women’s sports will re-write the women’s record books, relegate women to also rans and ruin many women’s professional careers. They should not be accommodated for reasons of fairness.

As for other contentious areas like change rooms, prisons and so on, only one transwoman with bad intent can cause harm to many women.

As others have pointed out, they can be accommodated in sporting events, prisons and so on in competitions and facilities designed for their biological sex.
 
Last edited:
If the California Senate passes the legislation and Governor Gavin Newsom signs it into law, parents who refuse to affirm their child’s belief that they are the opposite sex could lose custody in a dispute.​

More utter madness.

This isn't just madness, this is weaponized madness. Some parents in custody disputes will try to transition the child so that the other parent objects and loses custody.
 
People who lack the SRY gene and/or functional androgen receptors go in the closed category, everyone else goes in the open category.

Needs a bit of a tweek to comport with what "open" means. Only people who lack the SRY gene and/or functional androgen receptors can go in the closed category, but everyone (including those who qualify for closed) can go in the open category. No reason or need to limit entry into the open category.
 
People who lack the SRY gene and/or functional androgen receptors go in the closed category, everyone else goes in the open category.

*Sighs*

Using criteria that could actually be used in real life. We don't carry gene sequencers around with us.
 
Using criteria that could actually be used in real life. We don't carry gene sequencers around with us.
It's usually fairly obvious who went through which kind of puberty. Is there any doubt about Laurel Hubbard or Lia Thomas or Rachel McKinnon? Save the testing for the difficult edge cases.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
*Sighs*

Using criteria that could actually be used in real life. We don't carry gene sequencers around with us.

Oh, you rarely need a gene sequencer to figure that out.

And in real life, we don't have to avoid using the words you mentioned, so the task was artificial to begin with.
 
I should add that for all the transphobe, TERF and bigot labels thrown around this thread, I do not believe that there is one person who opposes anyone’s right to adopt any gender identity they wish. And have protection from discrimination in employment, education, housing and so on. It is only where the desires of some (mainly) transwomen and their activists compromise the welfare, safety and livelihood of women that the line should be drawn in my view.
 
And in real life, we don't have to avoid using the words you mentioned, so the task was artificial to begin with.

No but actual honest discourse has a point to beyond both sides trying to define themselves as correct.

If you can't provide a definition that isn't circular for what a woman is, i.e. describing the demarcation without just calling it what you think it is, you don't have a strong argument.
 
I should add that for all the transphobe, TERF and bigot labels thrown around this thread, I do not believe that there is one person who opposes anyone’s right to adopt any gender identity they wish. And have protection from discrimination in employment, education, housing and so on. It is only where the desires of some (mainly) transwomen and their activists compromise the welfare, safety and livelihood of women that the line should be drawn in my view.

On this very page of this thread there is a member aghast that a trans child would be able to dictate their own name, pronouns, and manner of dress.
 
No but actual honest discourse has a point to beyond both sides trying to define themselves as correct.

If you can't provide a definition that isn't circular for what a woman is, i.e. describing the demarcation without just calling it what you think it is, you don't have a strong argument.

Sure. But what does the practicality of genetic testing have to do with whether or not a genetics-based definition works for our discussion here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom