"Difference is, I don't want to. This is now getting into personal 'gripe' area, but there seems a trend among TRAs that they need to be in womens bathrooms" --

I think the issue with women's bathrooms is that they are supposed to be for all women, and yet those who identify as women are not allowed because of what they are born as. I understand the concern of being uncomfortable with someone born male being in the same room, but I feel like typically you are in a stall when doing your business, so why does it matter whether or not the person outside of the stall has a dick or not? Sexual assault is not a valid concern for this, as if someone is already so messed up as to commit sexual assault against an innocent, why would saying "you can't go in here" stop them? If someone intended to assault a woman in the women's bathroom, I doubt that saying "men aren't allowed in here" will have any hinderance on their behavior.

"Humans are 93+% accurate at telling sex from face alone. This is a non-argument."
--

I would like to see a source on this.

"No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous."
--

I would argue that there is enough variation genetically from person to person that you can't just black and white group people into categories based on what they were born as. Sure, being born with a penis will make you ON AVERAGE more violent, but are you going to claim that every single person born with a cock is more violent than every single female on the planet? No. You can make assumptions based on what someone was born as, but it is not a fact that they will be more violent because of what they were born as.

I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing? — Outlander

It certainly isn’t a spectrum like some claim.

"Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces" --

Technically, the statistics in America show that African-Americans commit more crimes on average than any other race. Are you suggesting that we start segregating stores into black stores and everyone-else stores to prevent crime? I hope not. While I agree that there is a risk of sexual assault, saying "you can't come in here" does not prevent an abuser from just entering the restroom anyway. Discriminating against who can come in the bathroom would have a negligible effect on sexual assaults, to the point where I would argue that it is not justified to punish the majority of trans people because of the small chance that one would be a sexual predator, especially considering that excluding them from the restroom would do near nothing to prevent the assault.

"This is the nub of the issue. The term seems to have been hijacked." --

You say hijacked, but if the majority of the populace cannot make up their mind on what the term means, I'd say it is not properly defined.

"Sure, the few hundred people out of billions and billions who meet that exceedingly strange criteria, may qualify as intersex and have a right to identify as the gender they choose"
--

I believe the argument about intersex is to prove that there is, in fact, the possibility for more than two genders, even using the "Sex Assigned At Birth == Gender" definition. It is being used to show that even using a purely scientific definition (which to many, is wrong), the two-gender mindset isn't accurate.

"So, which is it? Is gender a feeling or a social construct?" --
It's both. The idea of what a gender should act or look like is based on how society sees that gender. But the actual decision of which gender the individual wishes to express themselves as is up to them.

"This is what it means to be sexist - to confuse human attributes with sexual attributes - as if wearing a dress (both men and women can wear dresses - there is nothing about them physically that would prevent both from wearing a dress) is what defines you as being a woman as opposed to having a vagina." --

The dictionary definition of woman has no mention of a vagina or female sexual reproductive organs. So no, having a vagina does not make you a woman. Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. You could argue that Sex Assigned At Birth is what makes you a woman, but a large amount of people would disagree with you on that, so why hold so tightly to opinion that does nothing but offend, hurt, and de-validate others? There is no scientific proof as to how you have to interpret the word "woman", so it is a matter of opinion.

"With the overwhelming majority of humans, there's no ambiguity" --
I'd argue that everyone's gentics are a little bit different, and when chemical drugs that change biological features, the ambiguity grows even more.

"when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject"
--

Yes, but does this not also refute your own point? The current scientific and psychological community very much disagrees on the subject of what defines gender, so quoting what some scientists say, or taking an expert's word at law to try and prove that Sex == Gender, or that Male == Violent, is Appeal to Authority.

"My point is why are you believing one psychiatrist when the issue is still unresolved? Do you question all authorities, or cherry-pick which authorities you believe?" --

You say this like you have not been doing the same thing this whole argument. You have been cherry-picking sources, just as you have been claiming the same views as various experts on the subject, despite the issue still being unresolved. Cherry-picking sources is fine, that's how evidence works, but why is it ok for you to do but not others?

"It certainly isn’t a spectrum like some claim." --

Why is it certain? I think that while genitalia certainly influence biological factors, and people tend to stick with the gender associated with those genitalia, the biological traits associated with the "two sexes" greatly vary between individuals with the same genitals. There are naturally submissive people who were assigned male at birth, and naturally dominant people who were assigned female at birth. While the sex you are born as has a big impact on what traits you have, it certainly is a spectrum of traits, and the spectrum for assigned male at birth and assigned female at birth overlap quite a bit.

Ok finally I've responded to all this. Wow that took forever. That was fun lol

Why is it certain — Wolfy48

Because there are only two sexes. Male and female

"Because there are only two sexes." --

But this is a discussion on gender, not sexes. Also, still wrong, as the very rare intersex case shows that there is more than two sexes, in any case.

So no, having a vagina does not make you a woman. Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. You could argue that Sex Assigned At Birth is what makes you a woman, but a large amount of people would disagree with you on that, so why hold so tightly to opinion that does nothing but offend, hurt, and de-validate others? — Wolfy48

This is terrible misogyny. Also, utter nonsense.

I'd argue that everyone's gentics are a little bit different, and when chemical drugs that change biological features, the ambiguity grows even more. — Wolfy48

The idea that biological sex is not a meaningful concept or ambiguous in any way is complete boneheaded nonsense. The existence of rare cases of a person having both XX and XY cells does not change this.

"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain rolls out." -- anonymous

"This is terrible misogyny. Also, utter nonsense." --

How is it misogyny, and how is it nonsense?

"The idea that biological sex is not a meaningful concept or ambiguous in any way is complete boneheaded nonsense" --

I never said that biological sex was ambiguous, just that Men aren't definitively always more violent than Women.

Also, of course it's a meaningful concept, I'm just arguing that it doesn't define gender

"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain rolls out. - anonymous" --

That's not an anonymous quote actually, it was said by Walter Kotschnig (Sorry I know this is really petty but I'm having fun ;3)

How is it misogyny, and how is it nonsense? — Wolfy48

Eradicating the biological and social aspects that are unique to females. Total misogyny. Some airy fairy statement about comportment is flakey nonsense. I assume you are on a wind up.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

“Maybe you should. You missed off the 500 cases comment. You think sex is a spectrum?

"Eradicating the biological and social aspects that are unique to females." --

Again, I fear you are confusing sex assigned at birth with gender. I believe that the two are different, if you do not share that opinion, then I fear you are claiming that over 50% of feminists are misogynistic, since most 3rd and 4th wave feminists support trans rights and inclusion.

"Assault, for example, does not require contact." --

Here's the definition of assault... applies to the legal definition too, btw:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
as·sault
/əˈsôlt/
verb
make a physical attack on.

"Similarly, intrusion does not require immediate presence. In essence your view is that the women and their concerns fall and yield to the intruder. " --

So what is intrusion in the women's restroom if not for immediate presence? And to the second part, I'm confused, is the concern not about sexual assault in the restroom?

"You think sex is a spectrum?" --

I don't think that's what he's saying, but if he is, he is just as entitled to hold that belief as you are entitled to hold yours.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No. This is the entire premise of the side of this issue I am on. Preventative measures to avoid the inevitable abuse females will face when more males are in their intimate spaces (empirically wrong or right, I'm just saying that's the line of thinking). — AmadeusD

Thanks for the first card you put on the table now can I get the other 51? Those that come after concerning public policy, grassroots movements, social outreach, weighing of different sex education programs on the market, answering what cultural reasons certain offenders become opportunistic, etc.

Wrong. You continue to purposely misunderstand what I have written. If legal or public policy is not based in reality, then what use is it? Do you make this same case for all scientific conclusions, like on the environment? Do you not use scientific data to support the idea that the environment is changing? Hypocrisy is your brain on politics. — Harry Hindu

No. . . you can use biological classification schemes. . . and sometimes you don't. That is why most legal and public policy can be sex independent, race independent, etc.

Is there a law you can link to me that showcases asymmetry in how the law deals with male offenders versus female offenders? Even though the statistics are in fact asymmetric?

There may be a social angle to this as it seems they do. All though I'm betting its not related to lawful language.

When did I ever imply such a thing. Notice you had to quote this yourself and did not quote me as saying this. Straw-man. — Harry Hindu

Here is a quote from the last discussion. . . .

If gender is a social construct, then a gender's binary, ternary, decimal, unitary or sexagesimal quality is just another social construct. At any point a citizen of some culture could revolt and claim yet another "gender", but if it's not recognized by the culture, then it isn't what society defines as "gender". In essence, the individual would be non-gendered, or not part of that cultural heterosexual game that heterosexuals play. That isn't to say that they are unequal.

You literally are talking above if you remember your comments from six years ago about gender being a social construct and worried about it changing (culture revolution) by arbitrary dictate. That is a form of anti-realism, social constructivism about gender. The revolution can come at any time and sweep all your identities away like some big storm.

Your example of an extreme viewpoint extends to any non-extreme viewpoint if they even have a semblance of something that is socially created or 'personally made up'. So you could make the same argument to the point that the only thing that will suit you is if it was all biologically founded deterministically. So just some form of biological essentialism. However, well. . . I pointed out in minor sense why this still leads to the same debates, discussions, clarifications on legal language, or public policy in certain cases. Which biological aspects do we focus on if none at all? Is it meant to be present directly in written legal language?

My argument about social constructs has been in exposing the inconsistency between gender being a social construct and a personal feeling. It cannot be both because one is the antithesis of the other. It is their feeling that is at odds with the social construct. So, which is it? Is gender a feeling or a social construct? — Harry Hindu

Are their social and feeling aspects to how as well as why one presents themselves, yes. End of discussion. Unless you want to argue some peculiar and strange claim that we've used nothing from our biology, personal biases, or social cues to influence how we present ourselves.

So now we can ask, of all these biologically related features, which are we supposed to use in public policy to single out groups for policy actions to be taken against them, what biological classification should be put into law to under guide how these offenders are dwelt with or what proceedings, etc. Are we to create laws specifically for female offenders and male offenders separately?

Well, I have been asking what a transgender person means when they say they are a "man" or "woman". I am trying to clarify what they mean by asking questions about what they actually mean - something you have been averse to yet is required to solve your problem. I have already laid out the inconsistencies of their definitions of gender as a social construct, feelings, sexist tropes, etc., I have been waiting on you to clarify since you claim to understand them but you'd rather make arguments without any clear definitions of what it is you are actually talking about. — Harry Hindu

I literally wrote it in the comment why this is pointless but I guess you take it as a definition that we have biological features which are more easily changed and those which aren't.

We are still left clarifying exactly what those features lead to from a behavioral standpoint, what they imply for gender/sex roles, what that means for legal standpoints as to whether we become Gattaca and start listing genomes in law proceedings, etc.

@Wolfy48 Has a snide remark about the fact that racial statistics are also in general rather asymmetric. You could even point to historical, social, and biological reasons for why this is. In what SPECIFIC manner is this supposed to influence public policy and legal language if anything at all?

Eradicating the biological and social aspects that are unique to females. — Malcolm Parry

Which social aspects? Could you get rather specific on which ones are UNIQUE to females?

I can only assume they are biologically essential to females as you said they are UNIQUE.