we have a number of factual examples of trans 'women' raping or assaulting women in female prisons. — Jeremy Murray

And there are factual examples of trans women being raped or sexually assaulted in men's prisons.

In fact, according to this, "the total number of transgender victims far exceeds the number who were suspected of carrying out sex attacks, with only one such case in 2019."

Both the safety of cisgender women and the safety of transgender women (and cisgender men and transgender men) matter. You (and at least one other in this discussion) seem to only care about the safety of cisgender women.

We can, and do, talk about intersex individuals having both a female phenotype and a male karotype, or having both a male phenotype and a female karotype, therefore the terms "male" and "female" cannot mean what you claim they mean, else such biologies would be logical contradictions.

As an example, someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (NSFW) has a female phenotype despite having an active SRY gene.

Therefore the adjective "female" cannot mean "doesn't have an active SRY gene".

Your account is incompatible with how the English language is actually used.

Also, the term "biologically male" is ambiguous. — Michael

It's easy enough to pin it down.

It's easy enough to pin it down. — frank

Then what does it mean?

Then what does it mean? — Michael

It means the person was born male. For a doctor, there are a lot of implications, which is why a patient's biological sex is listed at the top of a patient's electronic chart along with weight, height, and birthday.

It means the person was born male. — frank

Which means what?

Which means what? — Michael

I don't understand why you're asking that. You really don't understand what it means to be born male?

I don't understand why you're asking that. — frank

Because AmadeusD is claiming that every human is either biologically male or biologically female, and so that no human is intersex.

If his claim is true then it's not clear to me what counts as being biologically male and being biologically female, given the existence of individuals with XX male syndrome, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, ovotesticular syndrome, gonadal dysgenesis, etc.

As an example, if to be biologically male is to have a penis and to be biologically female is to have a vagina, and if everyone is either biologically male or biologically female, then everyone has either a penis or a vagina. And yet people with ambiguous genitalia exist.

Or, if to be biologically male is to have an XY karotype and to be biologically female is to have an XX karotype, and if everyone is either biologically male or biologically female, then everyone has either an XY karotype or an XX karotype. And yet people with different karotypes exist.

So you tell me; what does "biological sex" refer to? Does it refer to karotype? Does it refer to phenotype? Does it refer to something else? Is biological sex a strict dichotomy such that every human must be either one sex or the other?

For most people it's straightforward. If someone has XY chromosomes, there's a long list of predictions we can make about their biology.

In the other cases, we don't just give up and say we don't know which biological sex they are. We might have a different set of predictions due to a certain condition, but it's still a male or female that has the condition, and that remains significant.

I guess there could be a total gestational screw up where there's no way to tell, but I doubt that thing would be compatible with life. If it is, we'd just give it its own category.

In the other cases, we don't just give up and say we don't know which biological sex they are. We might have a different set of predictions due to a certain condition, but it's still a male or female that has the condition — frank

Then what does “biological sex” refer to? You seem to be saying that even though the vast majority of biological men have an XY karotype and that even though the vast majority of people with an XY karotype are biological men, there are exceptions.

If there are exceptions then “is biologically male” doesn’t mean “has an XY karotype”.

So what does “is biologically male” mean?

You seem to be saying that even though the vast majority of biological men have an XY karotype and that even though the vast majority of people with an XY karotype are biological men, there are exceptions — Michael

I don't there are exceptions to that.

So what does “is biologically male” mean? — Michael

XY.

So “biological male” means “has an XY karotype” and “biological female” means “has an XX karotype”?

So “biological male” means “has an XY karotype” and “biological female” means “has an XX karotype”? — Michael

Pretty much

And there are people who have neither an XX nor an XY karotype, therefore according to your own definitions there are people who are neither biologically male nor biologically female.

And there are people who have neither an XX nor an XY karotype, therefore according to your own definitions there are people who are neither biologically male nor biologically female. — Michael

Right.

There are also people born with unique differences (ie. not being able to produce testosterone) that would effectively have them appear to be female.

Note: Exceptions are exceptions though. We do not go around stating that when a child is born with four arms, or no arms, that we should think of humans as having 0-4 arms. Such levels of stupidity exist, so I wouldn't be surprised to find people stating just that.

I guess the point was that there are rare cases where biological sex is ambiguous. The vast majority of the time, it isn't.

What would your response be to women and parents of young women who object to the idea of a male (biological or not who otherwise possesses a male sex organ) regularly being a few inches away from said woman or young woman while their pants are down (ie. vulnerable)? Surely you're aware most rapes are performed by individuals with penises. So it's natural to want to separate the two. At least in places people don't "choose" (per se) to be at or utilize per necessary human function and existence (ie. the restroom). You can live 1,000 lifetimes fulfilled without ever having to pick up a basketball or a tennis racket or a weight set. The same is not true of having to use the restroom. If you don't use the restroom, your organs would rupture and you'd literally die (you'd likely involuntarily relieve yourself long before then, but that's not the point). That reason alone is enough to separate the two into distinct lines of thought and discussion that should exclude using "restrooms" and "sports teams" in the same sentence, as if they were somehow equal in requirement to human life. — Outlander

@fdrake @Michael
This is why the definition of what it means to be biologically male/female or the sociological/cultural definitional concerns as regards gender are somewhat irrelevant.

In the end it's the same argument when all the definitional dust has settled. When you mix different groups together they will inevitably have conflicts whether that is between different: races, cultures, nationalities, religions, ages, genders, sexes, political positions, etc.

No one denies this or should although select groups make a culture dime off of showcasing the 'dangers' of said mixing.

It's like keeping colored and uncolored spaces in certain parts of the U.S. because if you didn't then there may be conflict between the groups. You morally want to avoid that so you choose instead to keep the spaces in place. Is that still, however, a morally right choice? Even if there is great suffering in the beginning would you keep going in the hopes that it will culturally equilibrate?

I'm not going to say how successful it was but at least as regard colored and non-colored spaces we have moved on from those even if there was 'brief' conflict in their dissolution.

Further, this shifts the goal posts so the problems that need to be solved are not combining bathrooms together but solving the reason why men are more likely to rape women. That and 'rampant' pedophilia seem to be the key 'issues'. However, to reduce said statistics that takes a hell of a lot more work and social engineering I'm willing to bet neither political side is willing to jump straight into. In fact, I'm not going to name it, but one side might want to see these are natural drives that we just possess and cannot in fact ever solve. Ergo, certain spaces whether they regard sex or other cultural dividing classes are forever to be split. So says. . . the side I'm not going to name.

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

I provided five traits that almost always occur together in females and males.
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

They would be whatever they have a majority (three or more) of the traits.

Then someone with ovotesticular disorder or is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female. — Michael

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. — Michael

Male and female are not syndromes or disorders.

You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition. — Michael

Sure, it's a biological condition, but is it a sex condition, or a vestigial trait, like the tail?

A hermaphrodite is either an abnormality or a natural condition, depending on the species. We are discussing humans.

It may be that placing transgender women in men’s prisons and transgender men in women’s prisons results in more victims of sexual assault than placing transgender women in women’s prisons and transgender men in men’s prisons. — Michael

Or it may be that any person perceived as weak, regardless of their sex/gender, will be the target of assaults. This is prison we are talking about and violent criminals are typically housed with other violent criminals. If a trans person committed a violent act, I couldn't care less where they are housed (karma), just as long as they are segregated from the rest of us.

As for sports and bathrooms, I think we've gotten along perfectly fine with the way things are. If you are so concerned about the weak being injured or raped, then why create circumstances where women are injured by men in sports and raped by men in bathrooms?

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? — Michael

How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom?

If you are so concerned about the weak being injured or raped, then why create circumstances where women are injured by men in sports and raped by men in bathrooms? — Harry Hindu

So keep them separate as long as the issues persist. . . you are going to now give a solution to those issues so we can move on from this right? That is why you are bringing it up. You don't want to do such and such because it would increase rate of women being raped by men. . . you are going to give a solution to that and not a mere spatial bandage, right?

How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom? — Harry Hindu

To be fair, if men are going to do this they needn't 'dress up' for the occasion. If someone appears to be female then I see no real harm in them entering a toilet. The issue being there is no way to tell. If there is a clear case where someone is a man dressed as a woman, then if they enter and no one sees them it makes no difference.

Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that).

I think looking at specific cases is kind of trivial. Some people are idiots and some are not. Some people are violent and others are not. Some wish to cause harm and other do not.

We do certainly have to appreciate that certain behaviors have no physiological evidence. For example, being homosexual is not discernable by looking at someone's DNA anymore than being psychopathic is (although I am aware of the former being partially possible).

One thing is for sure. I should not be committing an illegal act for pointing out that someone is a man, fat, black or any other number of things.

I was once verbally 'attacked' for apparently calling someone 'fat,' when in fact the situation was that a girl with literally two chins (clearly obese) stated to everyone around the table that she was NOT fat. I simply said, without hesitation, "Yes, you are. I am not bothered by it. If you are it is your problem." or something along those lines. the fact that the vast majority of people around the table had a go at me, and others remained silent, is why these things come into the public eye.

People shouldn't be gagged if they disagree, but inevitably they will be from time to time. The very fact that these topics are contested is a good sign, even if the manner in which we repeatedly fuck up as a species is annoying. Apathy is probably worse - even if this derails the antagonists!

Basically in your personal lexicon "biological sex" is identical to karyotypic sex. That's not uncommon and perfectly fine, yet is not universal, far from it.

Far from universal meaning what? In less than 1% of cases? I guess you could try and argue that far less than 1% is "far from universal," but you would then have to state that babies born with two arms is "far from universal" as well.

Why?

Basically in your personal lexicon "biological sex" is identical to karyotypic sex. That's not uncommon and perfectly fine, yet is not universal, far from it. — LuckyR

Not personal. Medical personnel need to know what your sex was at birth. That's not ambiguous, unless it is.

The law is an ass. And likewise philosophers who try to disambiguate the actual ambiguous. As if the law or philosophy can make life clear and fair and unambiguous. The patriarchy is obsessed with sex, and especially the thorny issue of other people having sex.

After 11 pages, is it not time to admit defeat and perhaps stop trying to force all humanity into the categories we habitually use for toilets and prisons?

There are differences between sexes that matter and need to be taken into consideration when it comes to how we interact with each other.

Sex is actually an important part of the human species as well as human social life. Haven't you noticed this?

. Haven't you noticed this? — I like sushi

Yes. Haven't you noticed the ambiguity? Not just the varieties of physical inter-sex ambiguity but also the sex-gender ambiguity, and the physical-mental ambiguity.

And who has to consider it and why, are important questions to consider also. Everyone is supposed to be normal? But not everyone is. And the decisions of the UK supreme court about the interpretation of some words in a recent law do not make anyone more normal.

Haven't you noticed the ambiguity? — unenlightened

Point them out. If there are 'ambiguities' then clearly (or not) some may not. Exactly what do you have a problem with?

This is page eleven of the ambiguities. You haven't disambiguated them, and nor has anyone else.

The nature of the complaint is also ambiguous. :grimace: