I can live with that. — unenlightened
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.Not personal. Medical personnel need to know what your sex was at birth. That's not ambiguous, unless it is
Not sure why you are picking hairs here tbh. — I like sushi
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.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
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.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
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.Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that). — 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. — Harry Hindu
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
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? — Malcolm Parry
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
has a female phenotype despite having an active SRY gene. — Michael
Therefore the adjective "female" cannot mean "doesn't have an active SRY gene". — Michael
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
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? — unenlightened
. I don't think you immediately get to conclude that trans women are more of a risk than women on that basis — fdrake
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
I am afraid I am quite woke. — fdrake
But The debate is about the law — unenlightened
Why is it bonkers? — frank
Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps? — unenlightened
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
I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to. — Jeremy Murray
What do you say to renounced wokists like myself? — Jeremy Murray
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.