No, I don't think a biological male human can produce eggs — Baden

You could easily point me to one shred of evidence of human males producing eggs — NOS4A2

Et voila. You have outdone yourself here, sir.

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and rational members of TPF recognize there is an issue concerning biological, social, and psychological definitions for "man" and "woman" — Baden

If simple human biology has no place in a discussion of reality and gender, I apologize. — NOS4A2

And again. >> :monkey:

>>A "man" is what is socially recognized as a man. A "woman" is what is socially recognized as a woman. Since there is no overwhelming social consensus, it's up to us to argue one into existence. — Baden

:up: .

You accused me of denying reality, so I just wanted to know which reality I was denying. — NOS4A2

Oh yes, e.g.

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

"A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" — Baden

Look >> a biological male who is defined as a woman due to being socially recognized as a woman due to psychologically identifying as a woman (at least). Hence, the potential contradiction, issue, debate, what we are here for, etc. Open your eyes.

A trans woman is a biological male, then, according to your formulas.

According to every mainstream dictionary and encyclopedia published within the last year or two, a trans woman can be a biological male, yes. But, don't worry, so can you!

Animals don't have genders, just biological sexes. — Michael

And humans are nothing if not animals.

So why pretend the person is both male and female? The reality appears to be the biology, while the denialism remains in the sphere of identity.

The mind and society are real NOS. It's not just lumps of galavanting flesh out there. We're proving that right now by talking in a socio-psychological medium.

Although, if you want to follow your line to its logical conclusion, Trump was never president and is just a large orange blob that makes annoying high pitched noises whenever a camera is pointed at him. I kinda like it tbh.

I disagree with that. But I love your phrase “galavanting flesh”. I’m going to use that one, with all credit to you, of course.

You're welcome, I guess...

"A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" — Baden

No body "assigns sex" at birth. "Assign" is trans rhetoric. Babies' genitalia are recognized as male or female. In the small fraction of cases where genitalia are ambiguous, a specialist makes a closer check. A large clitoris or small penis might confuse things.

Putting aside challenges to biology (which would seem to be anti-scientific and justly targeted by allusions to 1984), the issue seems to be simply one of norms. How can we balance our desire to be fair and kind with our desire to maintain personal freedom ?

I suggest that we be careful with 'tranphobe' while also protecting the rights of trans individuals. Maybe some of my fellow liberals/progessives tend to cast their challengers as [synonym of evil] a little too readily. For instance, I don't think TERFS are necessarily crazy. (Ree ree ree.) Some folks on both sides want to pretend that the issue is already settled, but I think we are making the rules up as we go along. It's messy. For thousands of years we've taken a certain duality for granted, treating sex and gender as one clump.

It's possible that our biological sex will one day be a secret hidden in our medical records.

"
Bollocks. It just means the doctor said "That's a male". You can use "recognized" if it makes you happy though. :kiss:

I agree. Calling the other side "transphobes" at the drop of the hat isn't necessary or helpful. Better to just make the argument on the basis that psychological identity is real and important.

Sport perhaps has a pretence that it groups folk of equal capacity and rewards those amongst each group on the basis of prowess. The myth here is that there is something of merit in the effort involved in winning.

Sport has historically taken gender - the social roles attributed to men and women - as a proxy for equal capacity. Hence sports have in the past been divided into mens and women's.

But individual freedom has led to folk who question their assigned gender. This calls into question the proxy of equal capacity.

The reactionary response, seen in the OP, is to move from gender to sex, and double down.

A more progressive response would be to re-assess the way in which capacities are grouped, removing the questionable place of gender or sexuality as a proxy.

:up:
As long as we progressives aren't attacking science, I think we are in the clear. We don't want a Lysenko-style disaster. But a quick search seems to show that some progressives are a little too willing to chuck out science. Here's a politicized 'definition' of biological sex.

...The binary system (wo/man) set by the medical establishment to reinforce white supremacy and gender oppression, usually based on genitals and sometimes chromosomes. Because this is usually divided into ‘male’ and ‘female,’ this category ignores the existence of intersex people and natural sexual variations within the two broader recognized categories.

e.g. The falsehood of “biological sex” is a driving force behind the debates around trans people in sports, even though all research shows there’s virtually no difference between them and their peers.

https://translanguageprimer.com/biological-sex/

Note that the concept of intersex depends on the very polarity being challenged. Biological sex is also called a falsehood, seemingly an attack on biology. One could defend this as being simply sloppy, with the intended point being that too much is made of biological sex in that particular context. It is ammo for the other side though, who love casting progressives as reality-denying sentimentalists who pave the road to hell with good intentions.

Then we have the primary definition offered by a medical dictionary.

1. the fundamental distinction, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual; also the category to which the individual fits on the basis of that criterion.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+sex

As far as I can tell, the rational approach is to accept biology and not make a big deal of it, because 'psychological identity is real and important' ... and cultural and up to us.

A more progressive response would be to re-assess the way in which capacities are grouped, removing the questionable place of gender or sexuality as a proxy. — Banno

We might consider though that men like playing with men and women with women. In other words, it's not just about raw performance but also about the style of play and the feel of a single-gender situation. I'm speculating here, but I'd guess that cis women feel pretty comfortable playing with trans women. Probably cis men feel comfortable playing with trans men too. The issue of fairness is a concern, because people clearly like to excel. But that's not the only or even the primary reason to play sports, is it ? I envision the joy of teamwork being a big part of it.

There's a whole spectrum of views from Judith-Butler-type postmodernist takes (forget biology!) to the denialism we've seen on this thread (forget psychology!). I think the extremes fail and the ultimate social consensus will be found somewhere in the middle ground.

realpolitik will prevail, of course. I anticipate sports organisations dithering between the reactionary and progressive approaches until some level is found where few folk complain, and a new stasis is reached.

@NOS4A2's approach seems out of character. I'd have thought he would favour a Laissez faire free-for-all where anyone can play against anyone else, not this socialist stuff of setting limits on competition...

realpolitik will prevail, of course. I anticipate sports organisations dithering between the reactionary and progressive approaches until some level is found where few folk complain, and a new stasis is reached. — Banno

:up:

I think the extremes fail and the ultimate social consensus will be found somewhere in the middle ground. — Baden

:up:

I’m not against dress-up and pretend, nor would I tell people what to think and believe. But I won’t easily conform to someone else’s belief in the same manner.

Well, good for you. So we agree competition has limits. There's a start.

The limits for me are force and coercion. Let people be and all is well.

So you should not be force or coercion not to play against the under 10's.

>>A "man" is what is socially recognized as a man. A "woman" is what is socially recognized as a woman. Since there is no overwhelming social consensus, it's up to us to argue one into existence. — Baden

It's up to the community to use a term and from there its meaning can be derived from those seeking definitions.

Community Right defines woman based upon her sexual organs and it is considered an absurdity to use it otherwise.

Community Left defines woman based upon the personal identification of the person and considers misapplication of the term an insult.

Whether Rights ought talk Leftish is a political and moral question, but both are linguistically valid languages.

Sure.

The question then is why one's organs are relevant in deciding which football team one is on.