I recognise that intersex people have ambiguous genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosones etc. But they aren't neither or both sexes. — Malcolm Parry
That’s part of why the answer to these questions isn’t so simple. If a transgender man is outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender man and a transgender woman outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender woman then how is something like bathroom usage to be legislated and policed?
If we legislate to say that sex chromosomes determine which bathroom someone can use (ignoring for the moment the case of being intersex) then someone like Buck Angel (as he has already been mentioned) is going to face constant abuse and arrest for using the “women’s” bathroom because by outward appearance he looks like the typical biological man. — Michael
It is extremely simple. If someone is indistinguishable then no one will know or care. The law does not need to get involved. Just like they don't need to get involved when very masculine looking women go to the loo.
If Buck Angel is a woman then Buck Angel can go to the female facilities. — Malcolm Parry
So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female? — Michael
So the law ought allow for anyone to use any bathroom? — Michael
Molecular biology in the cases that are not immediately apparent. — Malcolm Parry
It has worked quite well until about a decade ago. Not sure why it has become so complicated. — Malcolm Parry
What molecules determine someone to be either a man or a woman?
But also your use of "immediately apparent" suggests that you think that biological sex is determined by outward appearance, and so not a concern of molecular biology at all, and brings back into question those who have undergone (complete) sex reassignment surgery.
You don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position. — Michael
And yet in your answer to my question above you didn't say "anyone can use bathroom A and anyone can use bathroom B".
So again you don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position. — Michael
It is only the tiny tiny minority of people you appear to be fixated on that may need more scientific basis to determine their sex. — Malcolm Parry
Why do we need a legal ruling when science resolved that question long ago? Does science now require legal rulings to prove or disprove a scientific theory?I agree with this legal ruling and its implications as it's consistent with my own stated position here — 180 Proof
Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for. — Michael
Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369 — Harry Hindu
Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? Are there intersex genes, or male and female genes that sometimes get muddled in the process of sex - of merging TWO different sets of genes together and would qualify as a mutation, but one that does not promote the survival of the species?I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there, or if you've misunderstood my argument here.
I accept that "99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes — male and female" as you say, but also that 0.1% of people fall outside these classes, and so are classified as neither male nor female but as intersex.
Malcolm Perry seems to be arguing that there's no such thing as being intersex; that every human is either male or female, even if it's difficult for us to determine which. And that's simply not the case. Human biology is complex, and the English nouns "male" and "female" do not fully capture this complexity. — Michael
Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? — Harry Hindu
Are there intersex genes, or male and female genes that sometimes get muddled in process of sex - of merging two different sets of genes together? — Harry Hindu
If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies? — Harry Hindu
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? — Michael
Your reasoning seems to depend heavily on the empirical question of how dangerous a male or else a trans woman is within a women's prison. — Leontiskos
There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for.
The reality is that the English words "male" and "female" developed to name the two main phenotypes that typically distinguish humans, with other words like "hermaphrodite" used to name those with a phenotype that differs from the typical two. We later discovered that these two phenotypes are typically caused by two main sets of chromosomes (XY and XX), but also that there are more than these two sets of chromosomes, and that the relationship between sex chromosomes and phenotype is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but a phenotype that we would typically name "female"). — Michael
And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison — Michael
And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison. — Michael
Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men? — Malcolm Parry
You are fixated on a tiny tiny minority of people that have had quirks in their development. These people are not a separate sex or both sexes. — Malcolm Parry
I’m not sure what this brings to the debate. For the 99.98% of the results are 100% accurate. — Malcolm Parry
Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men? — Malcolm Parry
If our primary concern is in reducing the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population then we must determine which of these scenarios reduces the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population: — Michael
Again why should women have to exposed to male violence for men to be protected from male violence? — Malcolm Parry
I’m arguing that men should not be allowed access to women’s spaces. If that is transphobia or sexism then I’m happy to be sexist and transphobic.Whereas you seem to be arguing that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of transgender women, such that it's better for 10 transgender women to be the victims of sexual violence at the hands of a cisgender man than for 1 cisgender woman to the be the victim of sexual violence at the hands of a transgender woman? That would be incredibly sexist/transphobic — Michael
If you want to claim that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of any other group, then just say it (and justify it). — Michael
I’m arguing that men should not be allowed access to women’s spaces. — Malcolm Parry
There is a reason why the sexes have separate prisons. What about this don’t you understand? — Malcolm Parry
Are we agreed that the prison question should be evaluated in terms of expedience and not rights? Or at the very least that criminals have forfeited many of their rights and therefore we are thinking more in terms of expedience than rights? By "expedience" I mean that we are focused on things like harm, cost, manageability, pregnancies, etc. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.