Yes— isn’t it great that racism is behind us? — Mikie

The Court did not hold there is no more racism. It said race could not be considered a reason to permit or deny admission into college under the Constitution. Unless you can show their reasoning is flawed from an interpretive perspective, you're just arguing you're unhappy with the result.

think the point is we choose our taboos (at some level) and we can examine their individual merits. unenlightened's point about sexualization and nudity is at the very least worth thinking about. — Baden

I wasn't dismissive of it. I was trying to arrive at a reason why the nudity taboo ought be reconsidered. The basis provided by me was not that nudity necessarily leads to arousal, but that it's a social norm related to modesty. My suspicion is that it's possible to desensitize ourselves from arousal when watching others have sex as well. My question is why we ought abandon a social norm because it makes things less workable for 0.5% of the population.

Do I have the right not to shower alongside a fully physically appearing female who identifies as male? I think I do, else somewhere we've assessed his right to avoid the discomfort of showering in the women's shower higher priority than mine.

Telling me to get over it and deal with the naked person of whatever stripe is next to me sounds as reasonable as me telling him to get over it and shower somewhere else.

other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated. — schopenhauer1

There is one legal standard throughout a jurisdiction, meaning the same leash laws apply to the poor and the rich. That's why lady liberty wears a blindfold.

Obviously law enforcement occurs differently throughout the city. There is both the feeling that law enforcement under-enforces in the poor areas as to certain crimes and that it over-enforces as to others.

I suspect the disparities result from practical considerations, class issues, race, and politics.

In some neighborhoods they get mad when the trashcans stay out on the street too long. Others are trying to keep the needles out of the alleys.

And of course the evidence of the Naturist movement is that it is perfectly possible to dispense with the taboo on nudity without dispensing with the taboo on public sex. — unenlightened

What is wrong with the taboo against public nudity? Why must it hinge upon proof that it violates the taboo against public sex is my question?

That is, I'm just saying the rule of modesty justifies the rule against mixed nudity as it justifies the rule against public sex. Why make some taboos taboo? Can't it just be that I find showering beside children not my own uncomfortable enough that I'd rather maintain that rule? It's not like fear of arousal is what makes me not want to see most of my neighbors having sex.

Oh yes, it signifies that we have to change all our taboos if we even question one of them, and I am advocating that. — unenlightened

Mine is a reductio argument, not a strawman, asking why change one and not the other unless you can show how in principle they're not the same.

Being autistic, it is definitely the case that I can be poor at anticipating what other people will and won't understand, at least until I've gotten to know the person somewhat. — wonderer1

All you say may be true, that you fully comprehend without having an easy way of showing that to others by reducing your thoughts to conveyable language, but would not that still make you a complicator under your use of the term?

I think you did provide important counters by pointing out the way those who are neuro-atypical process and communicate, but I imagined a complicator or simplifier to be someone who offers information to others for clarification purposes, but if you're imagining those terms to describe a person in terms of what goes on internally for their self-clarification, then that would be a difference in how I considered the terms you presented.

To the extent that one can internally be a simplifier and be unable to show it due to an atypical neurological process, that would draw a distinction in the way we might have been defining your vaguely defined terms. That is, I instinctively thought of a simplifier as that professor who could simplify concepts for me, not as someone who might have the thoughts clear in her head but unable to articulate it to me. But yes, I'll concede there are those who do understand but cannot articulate it well, but I'd call those complicators, not because they're confused, but because they leave me confused.

Maybe that makes me a complicator to you under my definition of the term.

Yes, but why respond to a post when snark is easier?

Let me restate it:

You've identified that public nakedness is taboo and argued it is without justification. I've indicated a justification beyond it being a community standard isn't required and that any change to it should come organically, as opposed to decree, especially one motivated by a select few being inconvenienced by the standard.

Beyond that, I pointed to another taboo, which is that we don't have sex openly in public, despite that taboo resting on the same rules that prohibit public nudity, which are generally considered the modesty rules.

That is, we needn't place all these taboos on the agenda to consider them for change and dramatically restructure our social norms just because we now face challenges from a very small minority as to what a man or woman is.

Great cite by the way. I'll just reference google.com as my source. Sort of like citing anthropology.

Fer fuck's sake! Has no one on this site read any sociology or anthropology? — unenlightened

Only for the points that support my biases. But point me to your articles.

I take as an indicator of comprehension, the ability to simplify and explain. In fact, the way you teach children to better comprehend (yes, it's a teachable trait) is to have them read a passage from a book, to have them summarize it, to ask them to relate it to the real world, and there are other techniques. But simplification demands examples, comparisons, and relation to experience.

For example, "Jack and Jill went up a hill to catch a pail of water. "

A complicator would say two people went to get water. That's not simplified. It's abstracted to summarize. We no longer are dealing with actual people, but concepts of people and we have no setting, but it's occurring anywhere.

To simplify, it must be a story because stories are what happens in real life.

So, if the child is doing poorly with comprehension, ask him how Jack and Jill are related (brother/sister, husband/wide, neighbors?), why are they getting water from beyond a hill (don't they have a sink?, where are they? What year is this happening), why do they say "fetch"? (is this somewhere far away?).

I'd argue a simplifier fills in these blanks. The person who can't provide these answers obviously did not experience this event and fully understand it. The complicator keeps it abstract without the ability to fully explain it, either because he's just poor at anticipating what his audience doesn't understand, or more commonly, he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about

That is true also, but irrelevant to the effect of the taboo. On the contrary, the effect of a norm of nakedness would be to make overcrowding unacceptable for just those reasons you suggest, unless close contact was also desexualised as occurs to a great extent in 'touchy-feely' communities. — unenlightened

I don't know the hangup people have in limiting their sexual activity to private places. If a boyfriend and girlfriend wish to shower in the gym and time constraints demand they relieve themselves sexually in the instant, why should us prudes interfere? We all need to nut from time to time. It's a natural function, so let's just grow up and let them have at it.

"Taboo" I'd submit is the dysphemism for "community standard."

What I suggest is that even if we can offer no immediate acceptable reason for why we impose such rules on expected civil interaction, and even if our most progressive thinkers believe they can prognosticate our eventual state with all these antiquated vestiges of our sexually repressed history finally being purged, i still object to the process being hastened due to the concerns of a micro-minority, but insist the change occur organically with acceptance occurring at whatever rate it might.

That is, one day we might all fuck like rabbits in a field and it'll be like shaking hands, but it's going to take some time for that change to happen, and I'm not going to hurry up that change because it is affecting someone's special sensitivities right now.

Some of the materialists here get all huffy when you ask them if insects are conscious. Well, — RogueAI

Makes me mad as a hornet.

The studies show a low rate of transitioning regret at less than 1%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/


On the other hand, there's no good evidence transitioning reduces suicide or suicidal thoughts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

Which means that this genetics is, in fact, a pop-biology that's not looking at the wide range of expressions which are possible. — Moliere

It's not pop biology any more than it's pop sociology to favor nature or nurture as primary. I realize the impossibility of proving the cause of behavior down to the last detail, but there have been separated twin studies to show the impact genes play. https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html

A male's Y chromosome results in increased levels of testosterone, which dramatically impacts behavior. https://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/effects-on-body#Central-Nervous-System

This is just to say the obvious, which is that your physical constitution plays a major role in who you are. Being dismissive of the role of genetics on behavior is required under certain political narratives, especially those that want to attribute all successes and failures to a rigged system.

I think the opposite is just as absurd (and clearly more evil), which is to state most successes are attributable to genetics, thus leading to this idea that some groups are superior to others.

My view is simply that genes and environment matter, but still leaving independent decision making to the person. But if you look and see that close to 100% of certain trades are men, it's doubtful that's 100% environment or 100% choice.

Not to the question of patriarchy, but to the larger question of whether it is subjectively better to be male or female, females report higher happiness levels than men: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2003/10/29/global-gender-gaps/

So while maybe men have certain competitive advantages in society, they don't serve to promote happiness.

Similarly in debate, when the process is denigrated in an effort to win, we lose a sense of what we're doing and why. But trying to ''win'' all the time is a very hard habit to shake. — Baden

You're not eliminating competition, you're just reducing the risk of loss so that the limited reward of winning is worth entry into the contest.

The risk of loss is the stress associated with criticism or being told you rank beneath your peers. The reward of winning is a pat on the back. To get more entrants, you either need to reduce the risk of loss (e.g. don't have an objective rating system or don't permit harsh criticism) or increase the rewards of winning (e.g. give the winner $1,000).

Since we have limited resources to increase rewards, we opt to limit risk. That is, you just rewrote the rules to your competition. You didn't eliminate it.

As to stress tolerance, a critical attribute of any competitor (arguably as critical as intelligence and conscientious), if that is more a male trait, you are correct that its reduction would benefit women. That thesis would rest on the idea that women seek stability more than men, perhaps owing to their nurturing instincts, but that's an idea based on stereotype, but maybe supportable empirically. I don't know. I've certainly known many stress tolerant women.

Part of that discomfort might be a holdover from the days of that boyish fear. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's hyperpeckererecterphobia. It's a youthful affliction. It's followed later in life by hypopeckererecterphobia, it's evil opposite.

Tender loving care is the cure for either though.

Speaking of male/female differences, any chance a female would ever be having this conversation?

He saw the title of the book "Real men don't eat quiche", and murmured quietly "Real men eat whatever they fuckin' want. — Banno

I agree with this, and tip my hat to any badass man who bellies up to the biker bar in his fishnets and stilettos.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

Are the maternal characteristics you identify the result of genetics or societal influences. It must be genetics for this to work else the system would not have resulted in this clear distinction because our XXs would be just as likely to have these paternalistic behaviors to this day. This acknowledgement seems to defeat the argument that we should not assign gender distinctions on the basis of sex. From this, the conclusion we'd draw is that the common correlation we typically see between gender and sex is likely actually causative in most people.

I have no difficulty acknowledging we live in a patriarchal society as you've described it. If our society allows men certain advantages and you insist these advantages arise from manly traits, then we're forced to that conclusion, but this is a pretty black and white binary system you've described, with women in need of help by men due to their inability or lack of desire to compete. How did we circle all the back around to women being X and men being Y, and since Y leads to greater acquisition of shit, we need to carve out a special room for X?
That sounds fucked up even to me.

Anyway, enough trying to sort through the inconsistencies and I'll just state the obvious. Women and men both compete equally in the vast number of fields in contemporary society, but for likely genetic reasons women tend toward some professions and men others, but if a man wants to work in a nursery school and a woman wants to operate a back hoe, they both can. Mostly they just don't want to.

The great equalizer is an education because outside of brute strength and perhaps some limited distinctions in intellectual interests and in certain fields, there are more than sufficient opportunities for both sexes to fully and equally enjoy their lives on this planet earth.

This isn't to say you don't have a bunch of chauvinistic men who use their increased presence in the workforce to deny women their right to compete, so we make laws to stop that. And men pass these laws too because fairness is a value both men and women prefer. No one likes an asshole.

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, and let's all stand behind the idea that you can't subjugate anyone, especially if it means putting your boot on a woman's neck because she'll outperform you if you don't.

It's the same concept as the victors get to write history. The stats you highlight are the result of historical male dominance and they are not a result of what women wanted or were capable of doing. — universeness

I know. So many women wish to plumb but are held back by the bullies who force them into other professions.

It's impossible to find data unsupportive of your narrative. Such is how Gospel works.

Oh the casual misogyny of celebrating the little homemakers who "are really in charge" because they tend your heirs just as your wonderful mum tended you. Pass the sick bag. — apokrisis

It's possible if you try not to read everything through your limited lens that you are the protector of women and all other things small from the men monsters of old who hate everyone not themselves, even their moms who supposedly were like June Cleaver and not far more complicated as such things tend to really be.

I responded empirically to the question of what men are. The data are remarkable really. There are a whole host of occupations that are nearly 100% male, particularly in the trades. These jobs are not particularly well paying, prestigious, or glamorous. In fact, they're backbreaking and necessary, literally assuring such things as your light bulb turning on when the switch is flipped.

Why do men take these jobs and women not? Does the patriarchy elbow out the women and save the glory for the man to solder the pipe and pull the cable? I don't think so. I think it's because women don't want those jobs.

Why do men take them? I suppose it says something about men, which I took to be the question of the OP, but then you interjected to help the women cross the street because they needed a man to help them from my maybe bad words.

Worry not. I'm only looking at what men do to answer the question of what men are.

Not worth posting the vid here but the ambience seems similar to me. And again, not a criticism, but your piece struck me as a kind of ''advertisement'' for manhood. Which is appropriate as a 'real man' seems a thing of marketing--maybe that's the essence of it. — Baden

I didn't take it as a criticism.

You missed the last line. It wasn't written for you. It was written for @T Clark

You'd have to spell that out before i could assent to it. I don't know what you mean by hetero-erotic fear.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. Does this happen to straights where you live? I haven't seen any signs of fear of being or being thought to heterosexual. — unenlightened

No, not at all what I was getting at.

You said you thought maybe closeted homosexuals didn't want transsexuals in the locker room because it would be too erotic for them to bear.

I wasn't disagreeing with that necessarily, but I was just remarking that part of the reason they don't let women squeeze into the men's showers along side men isn't just because the women might fear assualt, but it might also be that the heterosexuals would find that too arousing.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this.

I'll need a link.

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. If — unenlightened

Isn't the basis for having separate gym lockers right now in part hetero-erotic fear?

What do humans do? — universeness

The link. You missed the link.

Let's start with where we might find men. https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender

What do men do? They build, they toil, they manipulate their environment, they brave the elements, and they protect. The vehicle that got you to work was likely designed by a man, built by a man, driven on a road laid down by a man. The building you walked into was likely designed and built by a man, the sink you used, the toilet you flushed, all built and maintained by a man. The HVAC, the elevator, the electrical system, all installed by a man with dirt on his hands and his name on his shirt. The desk you sit in front of, also built by a man. And most, real men I propose, do this less so because of the great rewards that might or might not follow, but it's because what real men do.

This is meant as a celebration of the man. The celebration of the woman is just as real, but looks much different. Their hand rocks the cradle and therefore rules the world.

Such outdated thinking I know. But I also know that someone here reads this and says "Thank God there are still people who say this." I wrote this for you.

Therefore, as Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. — Baden

So you represent 100,000 in your district, and you're going to vote to build partitions for the 0.05% (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/) who are asking for them, which is 50 people. Good call.

In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. — Baden

I guess. Or maybe not. "For instance, most studies have shown that men have a greater proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, a difference traditionally attributed to genetics." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/4-myths-about-testosterone/

If you rebuke me for trying to claim XY is the essence of maleness, I rebuke you for trying to claim testosterone is the essence of maleness. At least XY is more fundamental.

. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. — Baden

The UK, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have illegalized the use of puberty blockers on children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=7d68e9e27efb I point this out because in the article @Banno cited, the author lamented Arkansas' same limitation, which goes to show the rampant bias in favor of supporting the trans community without regard to consequence.

I think the opposite of you, which is that we're all slowly going to jump on this bandwagon. What I think actually is going on is that people jumped on too fast and they're starting to jump off. The true beleivers think this is just backlash. I don't. I think people are starting to slow down and think this one through. That's my position at least.

As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me? — unenlightened

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men.

haven't made any arguments about any of those things. I've only done what you directed us to do in the OP. — Baden

Alright then, what's your position on those things?

The reason I claim this is there is no evidence-based justification for taking such a position, the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, whereas the truth is that trans women are the ones under threat from stigmatization and verbal and physical abuse, not just in bathrooms, but everywhere. — Baden

The problem with your argument is that you're not making an argument about trans' folks and bathrooms, you're making an argument just about bathrooms. That is, nothing you've said suggests that all bathrooms shouldn't be unisex and that I shouldn't be allowed to enter a woman's bathroom if I wanted to. It's not like I wouldn't shut the stall door, and what difference does it make if I'm just washing my hands next to a woman? And even if we still have a urinal, it's not like a woman is going to look around the corner to see me, right?

So why don't you just eliminate male/female bathrooms?

But enough of this easier issue. What about gym lockers and sports teams? That's a problem, right?

Of course I don't think you should have a national or local referendum on every issue of social policy, large and small, as sometimes moral leadership is necessary. — Baden

I'm not suggested direct democratic voting, but I can allow for a representative democracy. My point in asking was only to see if you thought it was a matter for people to decide or if you thought it was a matter of civil rights, that it violated some inherent principle of fairness not to afford trans people the exact rights of CIS people in all instances.

To sum this up, yes, lies, ignorance, and irrational fears should not lead social policy, regardless of their popularity. Compassion, intelligence, and understanding should. — Baden

I have compassion for those women who don't want a pre-op transsexual (and post-op as well probably) in the gym locker with them and I have compassion for those women who can't compete in sports against transsexuals. I also have compassion for children who might be being subjected to questionable medical treatment. This is not fear mongering, but areas of legitimate concern.

I'm just wondering where we're drawing the line, if at all. We can quibble about which doors we'll open to transsexuals, but I'm trying to figure out if you're opening them all or leaving some closed. The problem with closing some is that you slip into my camp because at that point, you're going to have to explain why some women are not women like other women in the very way I've pointed out.

Anyhow, I don't hold animus to those of you who disagree. — Baden

No, you just think I've not caught up with the times, sort of like in the 40s and 50s when everyone was openly racist, but now they've realized that was wrong.

When we're both 100, still pissing around in the Shoutbox, we'll be able to look back and one of us will be able to tell the other "I told you so."

I'm not in your 99.5% and neither are a huge number of others who find the idea that a simple thing like a trans woman using the woman's lavatory should not be an issue in any reasonable society. — Baden

This disputes what the outcome of what the vote would be, but do you dispute that it should be a matter decided by vote?

It said it was a 21 minute read and I beat that substantially, so if I muddle something, I'm sure you'll correct me.

I don't dispute the claims against essentialism, meaning I don't suggest to be a "woman" there is one particular criterion that must exist else you cease being a woman. My position has not been XX is necessary for all womanhood. In particular, I do consider an XY female gender identified person to be a "woman."

As to the family resemblence argument, that is obviously well known and it's not entirely clear to me what that specifically means other than to say that if things look sort of enough alike then they are sufficiently similar for naming purposes. Obviously it is not limited to how things look, but as to all the things about them, including what they do, how they behave and so on.

Nothing I have read in the article has given me pause to think I've violated any of the principles she's identified, and everything I've said can be described in ways that would be consistent with her primer on lingusitic philosophy. That is, we have a good number of folks who identify as "woman" and we have some dispute among those in the language community as to how the term "woman" is to be used. The author asserts this dispute is contrived by those with a political agenda because it should be clear within the whole language community as to what the resemblance of all the folks claiming themselves "women" to be and that the reference to XX and XY are diversions designed to trounce upon the rights of transsexuals.

I don't agree with this, largely because XY chromosomes, as well as the testosterone that comes from it, the musculature that comes from it, and all the primary and sexual characteristics that come from it, result in a being with a certain resemblance that is of critical enough variance that it does not fall within the resemblance of those with XX composition. It is also obvious that the genetic differences lead to different behaviors, both in physical strength and in emotional reaction. We can debate the extent to which societal factors affect the emotional responses of individuals, but we cannot as to the physical strength issues. I do not believe it ought be controversial that men and women respond differently emotionally due to genetic differences as well, but I expect more dispute in this area than with physicality.

When we wish to use the term "woman" we therefore must do so within the context we're in. To the extent there are irrelevant differences in family resemblance, we can disregard them and refer to them all as women. Such is the case if a female gender identifying XY were working at my office. It makes no difference that she might look or act slightly different from a CIS female because the resemblance would be sufficient enough to refer to her as a woman and afford her whatever rights we typically afford a woman in her situation, including how to dress, how to speak, and so on.

On the other hand, if we're having tryouts for the women's soccer league or allowing certain members into bathrooms or locker rooms, the actual physical appearance and functionality of the person is relevant. At that point, the transsexual "woman" and the CIS "woman" no longer share a family resemblance in the manners relevant to this context. If we do choose, however, to call them both women for politically demanded reasons, we may, but we need not then confuse ourselves that the two are the same for the purposes of affording them the same rights of entry into the same previously separated spaces.

If there were a magic pill that a man could take to transform himself into a perfectly appearing woman with all behavorial aspects of a CIS woman yet the XY were maintained, then I would allow that person full access to the CIS women spaces. This extreme hypothetical is offered to acknowledge that it is not the XX/XY designation that is essential for the CIS definition, but it is the manifestation of that genetic composition that we're looking at. I think it's just a scientific fact that genes are determining these things, and so it's easy enough to refer to the genes as a representation of expected behavioral characteristics, and thus how they will look and act (and what they will therefore resemble).

All of this is to say that XX female gender identifying folks are different from XY female gender identifying folks in certain contexts, enough so that offering them differing labels in is order. Calling them both "woman" results in an imprecise language in certain limited but important contexts, resulting in offering them priviledges not properly due them, and then leading me to ask for a more proper A, B, C, D designation system be used when needed.

And I do realize we can eliminate some of these concerns by building more walls in the bathrooms and gym lockers and perhaps doing away with contests of strength and maybe even stigmatizing those men who insist upon only dating CIS women so we can avoid this dispute. I have misgivings about such a solution, which is a different conversation dealing with pragmatics and the how the rights of the entire community ought be respected, not just a particular minority. I leave that as an aside for the moment, though, and focus just upon the language issues you've brought up.

The thread's title is 'What is a "Woman"', but it's not about definitions — Banno

It is about definitions. The word hammer is meant to indicate i'm not forcing definitions, but looking to usages and noting varying uses and the confusions created by different users using terms differently and then imposing their norms on those meanings in inconsistent ways.

No comment as yet on the article. I look forward to your response. — Banno

I appreciate that reference and read through some of it and intend to respond. I debated whether to place this thread under the language or current events category, opting for the latter, but thinking this has more to do with language to me in the emotionally divorced way I'm trying to analyze it.

Really, it's entirely their fault. — BC

It's either the fault of the individual for his situation or the fault of another. If only the individual hadn't been so lazy, expecting others to assist versus if only the other individuals hadn't been so heartless, refusing to share.

It's all how you wish to cast the characters in your narrative.

the failure to account for real discrepancies in how we categorise stuff, on understanding necessity and kinds and how sometimes it's a family resemblance. — Banno

I don't think it misses that point at all. The issue I've described doesn't attempt to hammer a preferred definition onto a word. We have a real world equivocation problem here, with different communities using the same designator for different referents. The battle is over who gets the word and all privileges attached to it.

My point is that just because you get the word doesn't mean you get the privileges attached to it unless there is a reason for it. Like in sport's, for example.

The relationship between biological description and man/woman designations is not so easy as I once thought — Moliere

Yes, I very much agree with you here. As I've framed it, I don't deny female gender identifying XYs are women. It's not as simple as it would have been framed 20 years ago.

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts.

This is not about chromosomes or genitalia or societal expectations; but it is about urinals and stalls and keeping people safe. — Banno

It's about all sorts of things, which include comfort levels of women and men, sports programs, and treatment of children. You may have concluded what you think the solution is, but it is about all those things and it is for that reason it is hotly debated.

It is not, as you would frame it, about sympathetic, kiind hearted, forward thinking intellectual folks and prejudiced, hateful, backwoods rednecks. In fact, half the battle is just responding to the ad homs and the refusals to accept I have no problem with people transitioning and doing as they wish. This isn't a moral issue for me at all, and I'm fully supportive of safety and protecting everyone, especially our most vulnerable. I don't throw those words out there just to say the right thing. I sincerely believe it. Justice is blind.

None of this requires me to turn off my brain and declare something is something that it is not though.

What I'd say is recent is that people who thought biology mattered have found out that it doesn't. — Moliere

It matters sometimes, not others. Is that not obvious?

There's even a paragraph for you, Hanover, explaining who your simplistic xx and xy "solution" ignores. — Banno

It ignores no one. I've not suggested transsexuals are not full fledged women. I've only pointed out that the term "woman" is used differently in different contexts, which is screamingly obvious. I also don't believe anyone can dictate the proper usage of the term, as if to suggest an XX person cannot be referred to as a woman in polite company if they gender identify as a man.

To neutralize the language, I'll call female gender identifying XYs "A," male gender identifying XYs "B," female gender identifying XXs "C," and female gender identifying XXs "D."

As aren't Bs aren't Cs aren't Ds.

We have historically treated Bs and Ds distinctly. It's not shocking that we treat As and Cs distinctly as well. It's also not correct to say A = C simply because they share one trait and not another. The same holds true for trying to say A=B or C=D simply because they share one trait.

My position is not binary.

Sometimes it matters what your sex is and sometimes not. That shouldn't be controversial.