I can live with that.

I can live with that. — unenlightened

'Every wind in the river sure makes its own way down to the sea.'

It is 6 years and I only said anything here as it seemed to be revived due to definition of 'Woman' in UK.

What I meant by not uncommon, but far from universal is that most folks define "biological sex" on genital appearance, not karyotype (as frank apparantly does).

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

Yup, it's personal. That is your insistance on using karyotype to determine biological sex. As it happens medical personnel (unlike your personal definition) don't use karyotype to determine biologic sex at birth, they inspect the baby's genitalia.

Under your definition biologic sex was unable to be determined before 1956.

You do accept that the difference is as good as universal though? There is far less than 1% difference (to the point where it would be described as statistically universal). Not sure why you are picking hairs here tbh.

Not sure why you are picking hairs here tbh. — I like sushi

When someone wants to lay down the law about who can and who cannot excrete here or there, then the hairs have to be picked, or split or something, because all God's children gotta take a dump, even the weirdos and curiosities.
Personally, I'm happy to let people pick the toilet they feel most comfortable with, and not demand to see their genetic record or genitalia or certificate of sexual identity. And maybe in prisons spend enough money to make everyone safe anyway and not have to segregate in the first place, except to isolate those who cannot or will not restrain themselves sexually or violently.

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? — substantivalism

Uh... yes. Keep the violent people away from non-violent people. What did you not understand about that? If trans are being placed among a violent prison population, it is because they committed acts of violence themselves. You seem to think that all trans people are saints and only cis-people can be mean and disrespectful.

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. — I like sushi

It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise.

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

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.

Yup, it's personal. That is your insistance on using karyotype to determine biological sex. As it happens medical personnel (unlike your personal definition) don't use karyotype to determine biologic sex at birth, they inspect the baby's genitalia. — LuckyR

Do they? :lol:

It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise. — Harry Hindu

What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.

I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.

No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions. — Harry Hindu

You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;)

Personally, I'm happy to let people pick the toilet they feel most comfortable with, — unenlightened

You think all restrooms should be open to anyone? What about sports?

You seem to be (overly?) focusing on the <1% issue of genetic anomalies, which you're free to do, but it has essentially nothing to do with my point that frank's selection of karyotype to determine biologic sex as opposed to genital inspection is less popular (and much less practical).

Do they? :lol:

Uummm... yes we do. What do you think happens at delivery? "congratulations you had a baby, we'll get back to you when the labs get back on whether it's a girl or a boy."

I was asking a question. You didn't answer. No problem.

What do you think happens at delivery? — LuckyR

I work in an emergency department, so I'm present at deliveries. :grin:

You think all restrooms should be open to anyone? What about sports? — Malcolm Parry

I'm happy to let people who want to play games choose who they will or won't play with and against. Personally I think athletes cheat by exercising and practicing so we wimps stand no chance; so I won't compete in their sports.

I don't think restrooms need policing; they just need regular cleaning. I always use the one with the symbol person with trousers, not the one with the dress, but they are usually both 'open to anyone', except for the individual cubicles when occupied.

No, that doesn't change anything mate. That is multiple use of words. You're also missing that one is indicative and one is determinative So lets go through your response:

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 — Michael

No. There is absolutely no contradiction at all. Convenience makes a lot of things unclear. If you are male, the fact you have a 'female' phenotype (which can't be true - you have certain feminine traits, physically speaking - and almost universally incomplete and inactive so, even functionally... Not female) does not change your sex. It means your phenotype is an aberration, and your process of sex differentiation went awry which we know because if your SRY is active, this is not a typical process - it is atypical, and aberration which we can actually pin down genetically, and we call 'disorder'. This is not complicated. Sex determination, and sex differentiation are different processes. This is why you are getting confused about clear uses of the same word in a single field for multiple indications.

has a female phenotype despite having an active SRY gene. — Michael

They are male. This is not hard to understand. A fully fledged male can be extremely feminine without aberration. So, either you're saying a physical spectrum determines sex or something else does.

I have given you the something else, and I have actually provided sources. One really easy one right here , on the Wiki for Sex Differentiation. We get this banger:

"Most mammals, including humans, have an XY sex-determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development."

Supported by:

"Males: The SRY gene when transcribed and processed produces SRY protein that binds to DNA and directs the development of the gonad into testes."

As you can see, once this has happened at fertilization and sex has been determined all sorts of aberrations and genetic mishaps can take place, causing differences in differentiation to do with either internal or external genitalia, breast development, psychological development (weaker, but theories about)
Under the section about DSDs (disorders of sex development) we get this:

"These categories consists of different types of female disorders along with categories specifically for male DSDs."

Because all people are either female or male. There are no people who are not female or male (if you truly belivee there are, I need to know what they are.. no am "ambiguous" because that would simply violate the two categories we have... WHAT are they; bearing in mind "intersex" is also, insufficiently clear in meaning, and clearly not about whether the organism is male or female.. what's the third category or number of categories??)

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

It does, though, when used here. You're bait-and-switching this to high hell. If you mean chromosomal sex, then say that. If you mean phenotypic sex then say that. These have no effect on whether one is a male or female organism.

I cannot understand why this is even something to push back against. They are simple observations about biology.

Only when you do not have the gear to check it out. It is visually ambiguous. It is not ambiguous, per se. And none of this - none, whatsoever - has a social dimension to it. Those are totally different questions. But fwiw, whether we're talking socially or biologically, using visually-represented phenotype to determine sex is bonkers.

using visually-represented phenotype to determine sex is bonkers. — AmadeusD

Why is it bonkers?

If you mean chromosomal sex, then say that. If you mean phenotypic sex then say that. These have no effect on whether one is a male or female organism. — AmadeusD

But The debate is about the law, about male and female toilets, prisons, and safe spaces, and these things have neither phenotypes nor chromosomes.

using visually-represented phenotype to determine sex is bonkers.
— AmadeusD

Why is it bonkers? — frank

Because it leads to ambiguity, and some people find ambiguity intolerable. Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps?

Because it leads to ambiguity, and some people find ambiguity intolerable. Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps? — unenlightened

I know you're tri-sexual. You'll try anything. :grin:

. I don't think you immediately get to conclude that trans women are more of a risk than women on that basis — fdrake

Hey fdrake,

You think of gender as a social construct, then?

Because if one concedes any biological component at all then yes, trans women are more of a problem in women's prisons then cis women. Due to the entirety of human history.

There's also a question about the degree of perceived risk vs the real risk. Trans people generally get treated as if they're a massive risk in an absolute sense when it doesn't make much sense, like people terrified of the prospect of unisex bathroom — fdrake

Trans people are not seen as a 'massive risk' and they are especially not seen that way in the bathroom. That's a bait and switch.

I guess you could fairly argue that some frame trans issues (not people) as a 'massive risk'. Because wokeness is a massive risk though.

I shouldn't have to say this, but anyone opposed to trans identities prima facie isn't aligned with my moral beliefs, nor the beliefs of the vast majority of people who identified with Trump's 'she is with they/them campaign'.

The majority of opposition to trans issues comes from environments of genuine harm - so far, this appears to be change rooms (which, I mean, obviously, different from bathrooms), the playing field of sports (again, obviously, minor consideration with kids, major consideration with adult bodies), and women's prisons.

When I talk about the issue in prisons, I am not talking theoretically. There are numerous examples of trans women raping prisoners, and if you'd like, I'll present you with some. Same as with injuries on the sporting field.

The 'tiny percentage of people' argument has been advanced by such luminaries as John Oliver, in his latest bit on trans people. Have you seen it? Your argument is the same?

I would say that any scenario of a person claiming trans identity and then raping women in prisons - or even, engaging in consensual sex with women in prison - is one too many. Simply because it is wrong to do so. Same in reverse. I think your premise of affirmation ENABLES this problem.

Some people suck, and will lie, in order to gain advantage.

Frame this as terrified of unisex bathrooms? Bait and switch.

I am no deontologist. I do think I can assert wrongness in this scenario.

It sounds as if you are utilitarian. As in, some harms are fine, if they enable an overall social good?

But of course, as an educator, you know that children are not representatives of their demographic groupings, but rather, they are individuals?

And you know, of course, that kids are not capable of understanding, say, complex utilitarian arguments that posit THEM as avatars of injustice?

I think default trans-affirmation, as a norm, is not just 'harming' conservatives. I think it harms the trans kids, the gay kids, the gender weirdos. This default belief system that you maybe? endorse is doing damage to the people it claims to empower. again, happy to provide evidence. From LGBTQ communities themselves. You must be aware of the second gen feminist rejection of trans issues? The gay/lesbian argument that this is simply convincing gay people to adopt a different identity?

I am afraid I am quite woke. — fdrake

So, man, why??

Let me hit you with my best anti-woke questions.

Why endorse wokeness when it harms the people it is supposed to help?

I can 'prove' this, or at least argue it with powerful evidence. Frankly, I'd rather present evidence than argument on this subject, as I don't know any wokist who can beat me in that realm.

What replaces the liberal enlightenment project that wokeness seeks to undue? Reparations? Who funds it? Who repairs the damage to the poor white guy living next to the poor black guy, who is no longer poor, thanks to government largesse?

What do you say to renounced wokists like myself? I got cancelled for playing a hip hop song in an English class. There are legions of detransitioners. The most intelligent commentary I see around race in America comes from anti-woke types like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes. Both black men.

Again, I hate even having to type that as if it matters.

Your side gets Kamala Harris.

Even progressive fundamental texts are lacklustre. You mentioned bell hooks in a post with me, and I picked up a book of hers to reconnect. But bell hooks was relevant decades ago. and bell hooks is much less shitty than progressive 'academics' at the moment.

Prove me wrong on this point by naming one modern legit woke academic. One. I like Matt McManus. that's the only name I can come up with. What has wokeism accomplished?

heterodox and conservative academics? much stronger than the woke. again, I will prove this to you with examples, if you like. and of course, mainstream conservative arguments are garbage. I am a conscientious objector, neither left nor right.

to sum up how I view your position - what good is a theory that consistently fails to predict things accurately?

Hey man, I hope I said all that respectfully, and I hope you see the length of this response as respect. I felt welcomed here on TPF based on responses like yours to me. I'm listening to the ST Specials album, as I write back to you, to try and get into what I perceive as your vibe.

I was into ARA myself, which was less common here in Canada.

But what did the Specials do? They formed a multicultural band (contrary to wokeness), they employed Rico Rodriguez (contrary to wokeness, cultural appropriation), they wrote songs against racism (like, most of them).

'I'm being chased by the national front', but the national front right now is woke.

Hi Michael,

I care about trans men in women's prisons, and trans women in reverse. I reject your implication that my statement was transphobic. I further assert that your statement is problematic for the LGBTQ+ community AND the trans community.

I just don't think you or the people who argue what you are arguing know what you are talking about.

I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to.

I was destroyed for playing a hip hop song. kids relied on me. not, i should conform to having been there for them.

this happens all the time.

I call your position morally wrong.

Please, prove me wrong! for real man, I want strong disagreement and such. I do not reject you for thinking what you think. but i do think you morally wrong, and request that you prove your point with evidence

But The debate is about the law — unenlightened

Correct. And (if accepted) the fact that biology gives us (at least one) "sex" which is universally applicable and attends to the interesting factors (obviously, transition changes this but I do not htink that legally relevant, for present purposes. A further discussion, to be sure, as indicated by my final lines previously) then we need a pretty damn good reason to move from this obviously legislatable framework, to one which is ambiguous, hard to understand and disparate (in terms of who accepts what premises of the legal framework - people took govts to court over allowing the relaxation of restriction, some are now taking it to court over reversing it). I could certianly have been clearer as to why I found it relevant, though so fair enough. Sorry about that.

Why is it bonkers? — frank

Because it doesn't tell us what we want to know (in the infinitesimal cases it cannot be understood immediately on-sight. Rare indeed). This doesn't even require that I have a position on it, either. It is simply not helpful. Susan Boyle might be caught up by that. Jeffery Starr would likely be (on converse sides to "sex") where there isn't an ambiguity for the person involved. Seems that this would lead to the exact problems the objections of the kind "What, you're going to check genitals at the door?" seem to point out (and reasonably)

Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps? — unenlightened

Setting aside the clear stab here(it was funny, so fine lol) I am bisexual, and married. LOL. I do not care what people look like, generally. The ambiguity means the rules are irrelevant. There is no restriction, in those cases because anyone can claim an identity and move along expecting you to assent to their self-image. If that seems reasonable, we don't have much ground on which we could talk about it.

Because it doesn't tell us what we want to know (in the infinitesimal cases it cannot be understood immediately on-sight. Rare indeed). This doesn't even require that I have a position on it, either. It is simply not helpful. Susan Boyle might be caught up by that. Jeffery Starr would likely be (on converse sides to "sex") where there isn't an ambiguity for the person involved. Seems that this would lead to the exact problems the objections of the kind "What, you're going to check genitals at the door?" seem to point out (and reasonably) — AmadeusD

True. What's your opinion on pronouns? Do you know anyone who goes by "they"?

I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to. — Jeremy Murray

Bruh. I mean, all that aside. Scientific fact states the human mind isn't done developing until the age of 25. Beyond that, actually. If children could be trusted to make lifelong decisions whose consequences would be with them until the day they die, the legal age of adulthood wouldn't be all the way up to age 18. People make mistakes when young. They're simply wrong. Often. That's why insurance rates go down after 25. Trust me, when it comes to this world and money, those types of people are never going to be wrong.

Unless you think children are much more equipped to make lifelong decisions and the age of legal adulthood and fornication with persons much older than them should be much lower? Do you? Please reveal yourself as such if so. And yes, a non-answer happens to be just as damning (or rather, the equivalent of one) in this particular corner you've painted, by the way.

What do you say to renounced wokists like myself? — Jeremy Murray

I agree with some of what you say regarding trans, but do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything?

A handful - though, majority are fluid about what they will 'accept' so to speak.
I have an odd relation with a 'sister' of mine.
She was my actual sister's partner from when I was 12 to when I was 26. She is a sister to me. However, about four years ago (after being absent from the country for several years) she decided she is now "they" and Charlie.
No issues with it. I guess my position is that you can't command me to use them. But in most cases, it would be socially decent. When things get argy-bargy i resile entirely from others expectations that I assent to their self image.

That sounds reasonable.

Good for you. Retired Ob/GYN here.

Good for you. Retired Ob/GYN here. — LuckyR

:up: