I recognise that intersex people have ambiguous genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosones etc. But they aren't neither or both sexes. — Malcolm Parry

So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female?

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.

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 the law ought allow for anyone to use any bathroom?

So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female? — Michael

Molecular biology in the cases that are not immediately apparent.

So the law ought allow for anyone to use any bathroom? — Michael

It has worked quite well until about a decade ago. Not sure why it has become so complicated.

What would you suggest?

Molecular biology in the cases that are not immediately apparent. — 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.

It has worked quite well until about a decade ago. Not sure why it has become so complicated. — Malcolm Parry

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.

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

It's quite an established field of science. I assume you already are aware or can look it up.

I think I can determine the sex of 99.999% of adults from a glance. 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.

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

I still haven't said it.

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

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").

I agree with this legal ruling and its implications as it's consistent with my own stated position here — 180 Proof

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?

It wasn't to long before your expressed position that many on this forum threatened banning people for even questioning the idea. I felt I was walking on egg shells when I started this thread around the same time:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5097/is-gender-a-social-construct/p1

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

Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369 — Harry Hindu

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.

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? 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?

If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies?

Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? — Harry Hindu

Yes. According to this, "infertility affects many – but not all – intersex people." Each person's sex gametes (sperm or egg) contain a complete set of that person's genes, and so can be passed on to the child.

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

There are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes, with particular combinations being responsible for particular phenotypes (e.g. XX typically responsible for the development of breasts and a vagina, and XY typically responsible for the development of a penis), but this relationship is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but develop breasts and a vagina), and there are more combinations than just XX and XY.

Asking what counts as a "male gene" or a "female gene" strikes me as a confused question. The words "male" and "female" had a meaning well before we understood anything about genes. I don't think that when we referred to someone as being male we were unknowingly referring to them as having a particular sequence of DNA.

All we can say is that in almost all cases where we describe someone using the adjective "male", that person has XY chromosomes and that in almost all cases where we describe someone using the adjective "female", that person has XX chromosomes. But there are plenty of people who defy this "rule", whether that be because they have a different set of chromosomes or because they have an ambiguous phenotype or because their phenotype does not correspond to the "typical" phenotype of people with their set of chromosomes.

Not that any of this has any bearing on the political discussion on whether or not and how we should divide bathrooms and sports teams and prisons. The etymology of English vocabulary is irrelevant.

If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies? — Harry Hindu

No.

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

What is your answer to the question?

Probably unisex toilets, sports teams divided by biological sex, and prisons divided by gender identity.

- Okay, interesting. Thanks for the answer. :up:

For what it's worth, I largely agree with @Michael, but provide the following caveats:

Sports) Let sporting federations set their own rules in accordance with competitive standards, eg I imagine performance differences in elite olympic weightlifters based on biological sex are large enough to warrant separation, but the same might not be true for climbing. Like it's not true for chess.

Prisons) Divide by gender identity, with protections in place to minimise risk of sex offences by individuals and transphobic hate crime. Since this is what people want anyway. There are already some measures in place like this in some prisons. Trans sex offenders get the sex offender precautions.

We typically use

• XX for female
• XY for male

and then

• you can be born appearing female but have low 5-alpha reductase and grow a penis at age 12
• you can be born XY male but your body is less sensitive to androgens and you appear female
• you can be born XY male and have a penis and testes and a uterus and fallopian tubes
• you can be born XY male but your Y chromosome is without the SRY gene which gives you a female body
• you can be born XX female but one of your Xs has an SRY gene which gives you a male body
• you can be born XX female and also have a Y chromosome which gives you a male body
• you can be born XX female but your adrenal gland produces less cortisol and your body develops as male
• you can be born XX female and XY chromosomes which is called chimerism
• hermaphrodites are common in some species and rare in others
• ...

Also

• Sex-determination system (Wikipedia)

- Okay. :up:

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.

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. I grant that if we knew for certain that no trans woman would ever cause harm within a women's prison, then your position about women's prisons would be golden. Similarly, if we knew that trans women would cause no more harm than the average woman, then your position would be secure.

Questions of perceptions and discrimination are also pertinent, and they could be leveraged to widen the meaning of "cause harm."

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

And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison.

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

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.
I’m not sure what this brings to the debate. For the 99.98% of the results are 100% accurate.

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?

And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison. — Michael

We haven't been focusing on that question as much, and I think it has more to do with rights than expedience. This is because the trans woman in the women's prison potentially endangers the 99%, whereas the trans woman in the men's prison potential endangers the 1%. So if we restrict harm to individual harm, then even on a flat harm analysis it would require an enormous harm differential to rationally prefer the safety of the 1% to the safety of the 99%.

Practically speaking, the trans person is going to require special attention no matter where they are placed. If we had infinite money they would have their own prison.

Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men? — Malcolm Parry

And yes - if we want to think about the historical situation of females in relation to males, then this is another consideration. @AmadeusD has spelled it out a few times.

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

Well yes, they are. That's why they are classified as biologically intersex rather than biologically male or biologically female.

There is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify someone as biologically male and no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify someone as biologically female such that every human satisfies either one of these sets or the other (and not both).

I’m not sure what this brings to the debate. For the 99.98% of the results are 100% accurate. — Malcolm Parry

The remaining 0.02% is 1,600,000 people. They exist, and any laws we pass that dictate which bathrooms or toilets or prisons people can use must account for them, else what is to be done if they want to use a public toilet, play football, or are convicted of a serious crime?

Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men? — Malcolm Parry

That's a leading question.

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:

1. Trans women in women's prisons and trans men in men's prisons
2. Trans women in men's prisons and trans men in men's prisons
3. Trans women in women's prisons and trans men in women's prisons
4. Trans women in men's prisons and trans men in women's prisons

It may be that more trans women would be the victims of sexual violence in men's prisons than would be the perpetrators of sexual violence in women's prisons, in which case the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population is reduced by placing trans women in women's prisons.

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.

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

That’s exactly what a man would say.
Again why should women have to exposed to male violence for men to be protected from male violence?

Again why should women have to exposed to male violence for men to be protected from male violence? — Malcolm Parry

Why should transgender women have to be exposed to cisgender male violence for cisgender women to be protected from transgender female violence?

If you want to claim that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of every other group, then just say it.

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

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.

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

There is a reason why the sexes have separate prisons. What about this don’t you understand?

I’m arguing that men should not be allowed access to women’s spaces. — Malcolm Parry

By this you mean "biological men should not be allowed access to biological women's spaces"?

But the question is: should prisons be divided into one space for biological men and one space for biological women?

This is why I suggested before to not use the term's "men's prison" and "women's prison". There is only Prison A and Prison B.

Two possible scenarios are:

1. Prison A is only for people who are biologically male and Prison B is only for people who are biologically female
2. Prison A is only for cisgender and transgender men and Prison B is only for cisgender and transgender women

In scenario 2 there is no such thing as a "biological women's space" (with respect to prison).

So we must ask ourselves; which of scenarios 1 and 2 is preferable? What factors must we take into account to determine this?

There is a reason why the sexes have separate prisons. What about this don’t you understand? — Malcolm Parry

We want to protect biological women from biological men.

But we should also want to protect transgender women from cisgender men.

So how do we balance these two concerns? We could treat cisgender and transgender women as equals, and so try to reduce the total amount of sexual violence amongst these two vulnerable groups.

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

I've not really been talking about policy, honestly. There are loads of ways to achieve things that would work for everyone logistically. UK prisons have diversity and inclusion volunteers {inmates} whose job is to act as a neighbourhood watch for hate crimes and the like.

For me this issue is generally not about policy, it's about what people think should inform policy. And that boils down usually to some intuition close to the following implication:

since {trans women are potential predators or men are latent rapists} and {trans women are men or trans women are criminals like men} then {trans women should be treated like men in various ways}.

Then I attack it on all fronts - doubt trans women are potential predators and that men are latent rapists and that trans women are men and that trans women are criminals like men. Even if I might agree with the conclusion for some ways - like maybe trans women shouldn't be in {drug tested?} women's powerlifting competitions.

I've largely not spoken about what I think ought to happen for any of these issues because I've been criticising the inferences that constitute the terrain. Except when I've referenced that the GRC was a sensible middle ground for lots of issues. Want to change your legal gender? Get an assessment and fill out a form, fund that process.