What prevents us from talking past each other when using these terms? — Harry Hindu

That's precisely the problem, and is what I brought up on page 8:

I think that many of these discussions tend to get caught up in pointless arguments about what the “real” meaning of a word is.

If you choose to use the words "man" and "woman" to refer to the general biological dichotomy found in humans, then fine. If you choose to the use the words to refer to some general psychological or social dichotomy, then fine. It simply doesn't matter.

The pertinent question is: should bathrooms, sports teams, prisons, etc. be divided by biological sex, by gender identity, by something else, or by nothing at all?

So let's not use the words "man", "woman", "male", or "female" at all, and ask a single question:

Should bathrooms be divided by biological sex, by something else, or by nothing at all?

Part of what constitutes values are balances of rights and these are intertwined with socially determined definitions. I know cis-women, for example, who would virulently object to excluding trans women from womanhood and consider it a (trans)woman's right to use the woman's bathroom as much as a woman's. And even if we accept your premise and speak of biological women's rights in opposition to trans-women's rights, we still identify a conflict of rights in the overall sphere of human rights between some* biological women who object to certain things---e.g. trans women using their bathrooms---and trans women. So, I think we are indirectly speaking about rights just by discussing who is affected in what way and so on. — Baden

The recent UK ruling didn't start with concern over bathrooms. That's just the issue that took over this thread. It was about public boards, which administer government services. Those boards were supposed to guarantee seats for women at 50%. A group of Scottish women objected to transwomen taking seats reserved for women.

I imagine the seats were supposed to be reserved for women so that a female voice would influence the government's decisions. The Scottish women publicly stated that they believed that filling seats reserved for women with transgender women was a threat to women's rights.

Whether one agrees with these women, or not, when a bunch of women complain that women's rights are endangered, the public ought to pay attention. The UK government did pay close attention and ruled in their favor: that when the seats were guaranteed to women, the point was that they should be reserved for biological women.

It would be very fitting if instead of reducing the issue to bathrooms, we talked about whether the women were right. Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women?

Start on line 1, finish on whatever line is last. — Michael

It doesn't explain what they mean when using the terms man and woman, which is why you cant point to it in the links you provided.

Essentialism is a dead-end philosophy. — Michael

Really? Define essentialism then. And what are psychologists and sociologists if words don't have an unambiguous meaning? What are you actually talking ABOUT?

So let's not use the words "man", "woman", "male", or "female" at all, and ask a single question:

Should bathrooms be divided by biological sex, by something else, or by nothing at all? — Michael

You're the one that has now called into question the meaning of words. What are bathrooms, sex, gender, male, female, woman, man, etc? It seems that we would need to define these things to even hope to answer these other questions.

I see where you're coming from. So, it became a rights issue because a group of women objected and yes, the public should pay attention. But I don't think there is an absolute answer as to whether they were right or wrong. The situation is contingent on the objection which is contingent on the cultural context, which is contingent on local cultural values. If this group hadn't objected, and perhaps in another country there might not have been an objection, this issue wouldn't have arisen and wouldn't have needed to. It's culturally conditioned and would seem, in this case, to be very difficult to universalize. That's just my take. I'm not deep into this and I have no objection to attempts to argue for either side. It could be interesting.

I see where you're coming from. So, it became a rights issue because a group of women objected and yes, the public should pay attention. But I don't think there is an absolute answer as to whether they were right or wrong. The situation is contingent on the objection which is contingent on the cultural context, which is contingent on local cultural values. If this group hadn't objected, and perhaps in another country there might not have been an objection, this issue wouldn't have arisen and wouldn't have needed to. It's culturally conditioned and would seem, in this case, to be very difficult to universalize. That's just my take. I'm not deep into this and I have no objection to attempts to argue for either side. It could be interesting. — Baden

Well on behalf of the Scottish women, thanks for at least acknowledging the nature of their complaint. Other participants have made it clear they couldn't care less.

The world in general is following the UK lead on transgender issues. The US is in the process of following the British pullback on transitioning youths. My guess is that something like the Scottish issue will come up in the US eventually. For now, we're as woke as you Irish.

It doesn't explain what they mean when using the terms man and woman, which is why you cant point to it in the links you provided. — Harry Hindu

The very first line of the very first link:

"Gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender."

So, we have a fuzzy collection of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral stuff that we group together and label "man" and another fuzzy collection of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral stuff that we group together and label "woman", and sometimes a third fuzzy collection of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral stuff that we group together and give a different label.

Included in this fuzzy collection is basically anything where we have a separate "men's X" or "women's X" and where "X" is not a description of genitals or chromosomes or the like.

The group that one "belongs" to is almost determined by one's biology, and in particular one's phenotype, and is the reason why the same word is used to refer both to gender and to sex. This has, unfortunately, caused many to conflate the two.

Define essentialism then. — Harry Hindu

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

It seems that we would need to define these things to even hope to answer these other questions. — Harry Hindu

No, we don't.

I only suggested that we not use the words "man" and "woman" because you are having so much trouble understanding what they mean when discussing gender. Presumably we both have a clear understanding of what "bathroom" and "penis" and "vagina" mean.

Ha, we'll see, I guess. Anyhow, I am going to resume observer status for a while. Good night.

It would be very fitting if instead of reducing the issue to bathrooms, we talked about whether the women were right. Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women? — frank

The women were right.

Remember the uproar when Rachel Dolezal, a white women, identified herself (or tried to) as black? That didn't sit well with a lot of people.
— RogueAI

Yes, I remember it well. Have you read Faulkners' Light in August? In a deeply racist country, as in a deeply sexist society such identifications are fraught, and passing is difficult and exposure devastating. But what is your point? — unenlightened

You cut out the salient point of my paragraph:

"Remember the uproar when Rachel Dolezal, a white women, identified herself (or tried to) as black? That didn't sit well with a lot of people. There were accusations of cultural appropriation. To take it to the extreme, imagine Donald Trump identifying as black. Ludicrous, right? Even if lightning were to strike Trump, and he truly believed in his heart that he was black, he's still white. But how is that different than Bruce Jenner identifying as a woman? Why is that tolerated?"

Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women? — frank

Are these supposed to be related questions? Because the Supreme Court didn't rule on whether or not anyone's rights were endangered. They only ruled that:

A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010. That in turn means that the definition of “woman” in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish Ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.

In other words, the Scottish parliament passed a law with these two provisions:

1. Women ought make up at least 50% of the board
2. The term "woman" in (1) includes anyone with a female GRC

Section (2) conflicts with the EA 2010 which defines the term "woman" to only include biological women. Given that the EA 2010 as UK law takes precedence over Scots law, section (2) is overruled, and the legal meaning of the term "woman" in Section (1) only includes biological women.

The ruling explicitly says in its second paragraph:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy.

It would be very fitting if instead of reducing the issue to bathrooms, we talked about whether the women were right. Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women?

The issues become much clearer and easier to settle in one’s mind when one abandons the concept of gender entirely, or at least relegate it to a grammatical concept, a relic of language, rather than a statement about biology. It ends the cognitive dissonance required to support and think about these ideas clearly.

1. Women ought make up at least 50% of the board
2. The term "woman" in (1) includes anyone with a female GRC — Michael

Did you mean "excludes" there?

It would be very fitting if instead of reducing the issue to bathrooms, we talked about whether the women were right. Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women?
— frank

The women were right. — RogueAI

Could you explain why you think so?

Did you mean "excludes" there? — frank

No. It includes those with a GRC and is why the issue was raised. Scottish Women Ltd argued that that inclusion is contrary to the EA 2010 and that the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to contradict UK law.

No. It includes those with a GRC and is why the issue was raised. Scottish Women Ltd argued that that inclusion is contrary to the EA 2010 and that the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to contradict UK law. — Michael

So the outcome is that transgender women can't take the place of biological women for the purposes of the 50% women rule. Right?

Specifically, see here:

Key definitions

In this Act—

...

“woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.

The Supreme Court ruled that this contradicts UK law, and so the Scottish parliament were required to repeal that definition:

In section 2 (key definitions) of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, the definition of “woman” is repealed.

Those seats on the boards were reserved for women and men who identify as women are not women.

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right?

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right? — frank

Yes.

hose seats on the boards were reserved for women and men who identify as women are not women. — RogueAI

Do you see this as the most common view in your community?

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right?
— frank

Yes. — Michael

Autism spectrum?

Autism spectrum? — frank

Huh?

By community, do you mean online? Or the circles I move in? Or the people in my neighborhood? Or as an American?

I am, I just don't have the hyper-literal thing. You seem to.

By community, do you mean online? Or the circles I move in? Or the people in my neighborhood? Or as an American? — RogueAI

In the West, would you say most people are thinking of biology when they say "woman?"

Yes. I think most Westerners would agree that women are defined biologically and men identifying as women are still men. It's a fiction that is tolerated because some people really believe they are in the wrong body and identifying as another gender helps alleviate their gender dysphoria, and there's no harm in going along with it, except in cases like women's prisons, sports, and things like this law you referenced about women getting 50% of the seats on boards.

Yes. I think most Westerners would agree that women are defined biologically and men identifying as women are still men. It's a fiction that is tolerated because some people really believe they are in the wrong body and identifying as another gender helps alleviate their gender dysphoria, and there's no harm in going along with it, except in cases like women's prisons, sports, and things like this law you referenced about women getting 50% of the seats on boards. — RogueAI

I agree. I think the trans activists were thinking of a quasi-philosophical view of gender that didn't make it out to the population at large.

and things like this law you referenced about women getting 50% of the seats on boards. — RogueAI

The law could have instead been written as:

(1) The “gender representation objective” for a public board is that it has 50% of non-executive members who are women or who have a female GRC (within the meaning of the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

Which was their intention when they wrote the law.

Unfortunately for them it was written a different way:

(1) The “gender representation objective” for a public board is that it has 50% of non-executive members who are women
(2) “woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.

Allowing (2) to be overruled by the EA 2010.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Question: is the law symmetrically constructed so as to protect men? That is, within this law are males and females protected equally and in the same way, implicitly or explicitly? The Scots would have apparently been willing to vote a dude into a woman's seat, but would they allow a woman into a man's? — tim wood

There's no such thing as a "man's seat" or a "woman's seat". The law in question simply states:

The 'gender representation objective' for a public board is that it has 50% of non-executive members who are women.

...

"woman" includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment [to female]...