@Baden@Malcolm Parry @Harry Hindu @AmadeusD @Michael @Wolfy48 @frank

You know what, let's just all pretend we are all biological essentialists/determinists. Everything is biologically set in stone the second your conceived or at least it arises as such in general. It's similar to pragmatic discussions surrounding whether a determinist lives life any differently than a libertarian free will advocate.

Then have the discussion continue from there. Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently, whether certain stereotypes are here to stay or not, lawful language, difference in lawful enactments/application, behavioral absolutism, self-policing on gender roles, etc? Can we justify it without reference to those biological features but rather mere statistical utilitarian arguments in a moral sense?

As is the case with @tim wood the attempts used to mitigate against sexual assaults' have all been based in utilitarian gambits. They are intentionally supposed to weigh another's pain/suffering statistically against another then make legal dictates or public policy as related to that. Such gambits are not meant to deal with the pain and suffering of both of those groups at the same time and other strategies are required.

Outlander makes a reasonable retort, but it wouldn't have been mine.

As for the challenge, it is case by case, as several references on that page attest. Particularly [7], [8], and [9].

Another telling line, which could apply to definitions I am not using: "There have been no reported cases of both gonads being functional in the same person, the functional tissue is usually the ovarian tissue.[10]"

If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. That some cells do not express this in males is a genetic aberration occurring during differentiation. This is spelled out clearly on Wiki page, and is what I have repeated perhaps eight or nine times now. I cannot see this as more than you ignoring the point, if you continually bring up the same point which has been addressed several times. No offense meant, but I will ignore this same argument going forward. If you disagree with my responses, that's fine - but you're arguing as if I haven't put a nice lid on it, from my side of things. We may simply want to use different benchmarks to define "male" and "female" - the issue for me, is your use is ambiguous, unhelpful and essentially useless. As I'd like to use them, they are definite and always applicable.

If you wish to say such baseless and horrible things, please cite a source or actually read what you're quoting — Wolfy48

I have provided full statistics and a discussion on them earlier in this thread. You can look back if you want to. Perhaps have a look at previous pages before jumping in like this :) It is also good practice to do a bit more of a look that at the things you already take to be the case.

But saying that all males, or even most males, harm females is just blatantly sexist and wrong. — Wolfy48

If you could point out where this was even vague intimated, that would be helpful. But misreadings of this kind will not be addressed for very long. To be incredibly clear: I am 100% a "not all men" person. But it is, almost always, males. That's the point - not that all males are abusers. Try not to take it personally.

I said males harm females. They do. It is the overwhelming direction of harm among humans. The only comparable set is females-> children and it pales in that comparison.

I think the issue with women's bathrooms is that they are supposed to be for all women — Wolfy48

/

No, they are (and have always been) for females. The change occurred when 'woman' no longer referred exclusively to females. That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it.

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? — Wolfy48

Speculative bollocks. Plenty of examples of trans people assaulting women in bathrooms (i've provided plenty in the thread, and I've not done anything close to an exhaustive look at that issue - just enough to understand it is an issue). But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males. This has nothing to do with 'risk'. It is their right. It has been since civilised society has been self-reflective in any real way. Rape crisis shelters are another extremely good example. Things like this prove there is an issue. This is sexual assault. Willing to throw even a single female under the bus for the feelings of males who are (in at least some sense disconnected from reality is not something I would morally entertain, personally. Given we have evidence of far more than one female suffering in this way, I'm good.

I would like to see a source on this. — Wolfy48

Also provided earlier. Here you go. Note specifically the opening lines, and the references therein. You may need to find htose other articles, so I apologise for that.

I would argue... — Wolfy48

argument is understood, but is wrong. Having a penis isn't hte benchmark. And it is totally reasonable to take genetic markers as indicative of typical behaviour. We do this for all animals. It gets overdone, for sure, and eventually is plain bigotry so point is taken, nonetheless.

Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. — Wolfy48

This is, sorry to say, complete nonsense. What are you comporting or expressing yourself as?
"a woman"
What is "a woman"?
Someone who chooses to comport and express themselves as a woman.

Absolute nonsense.

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. — Wolfy48

But that is factually wrong. This has been gone over. If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about. That's part of the problem - it is not theoretically ambiguous at all.

Thanks for the first card you put on the table now can I get the other 51? — substantivalism

Truly don't know what you're saying here. If you could remove the metaphor I'd appreciate it.

I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY — Malcolm Parry

They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread.

Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently — substantivalism

An awkward question. It didn't seem to until about 10 years ago, no. It does seem to now - but that's because people are denying it.

ok bro I'm not sure what you're yapping about. The legal definition of assault is to physically attack or threats that cause the victim to reasonably fear that they in danger of imminent assault and bodily harm. Aka about to be physically harmed. What definition of asault are you using?

" Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently, whether certain stereotypes are here to stay or not, lawful language, difference in lawful enactments/application, behavioral absolutism, self-policing on gender roles, etc? "
--

I fully agree! While it is true that you are (typically) born one sex or the other, that does not determine what society has to think or what someone has to express themselves as in the future.

Aside from the incorrect ambiguity in the opening, yes, 100%. But that doesn't say anything about policy. What 'society thinks' amounts to convention. Policy is a bit different, so best prize those apart.

"I have provided full statistics and a discussion on them earlier in this thread. You can look back if you want to. Perhaps have a look at previous pages before jumping in like this :) It is also good practice to do a bit more of a look that at the things you already take to be the case." --

I have read through your source, and no where does it say that trans women are 4 times more likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man.

I'm not oppressing you Stan. You don't have a womb.

I have read through your source, and no where does it say that trans women are 4 times more likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man — Wolfy48

You can look at the discussion given. And it does - you may want to actually look at the statistics. Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women.

"But it is, almost always, males. That's the point - not that all males are abusers. Try not to take it personally" --

And yet you use the fact that men are on average more likely to commit a sexual crime, even though it is a very small part of the population that does so, to justify how NO ONE born male can be trusted in a women's bathroom.

"That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it."
--

The general outrage over is that people who consider themselves to be women are not being allowed into the women's restroom, and when they ask why, they receive the answer: "Because you're not a real woman," which is hurtful to them and disregards their right of self-expression.

"This is sexual assault." --

Nowhere in that article is a claim made of sexual assault.

"But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males." --

I'd argue that EVERYONE has a right to not be seen naked by ANYONE. And if you do not wish for a certain group of people to see you naked, don't get naked in front of said group of people.

"Also provided earlier. Here you go. Note specifically the opening lines, and the references therein. You may need to find those other articles, so I apologise for that." --

This paper never mentions the numbers you quote, was done with a subject size of less than 50, and only used the faces of people who identify as the gender they were born as. Some drugs, such as testosterone and estrogen, change the shape and texture of the face, and the study says nothing about that. Not to mention, the study you provided specifically states that they only used isolated faces, and that cues such as dress, hairstyle, and makeup also are taken into account when identifying someone's gender.

"What are you comporting or expressing yourself as?
"a woman"
What is "a woman"?
Someone who chooses to comport and express themselves as a woman.
Absolute nonsense." --

As I have stated before, the exact definitions of the words "gender," "man," and "woman" are not very precise, and are left up to the interpretation of the individual. You are free to interpret the word "woman" as meaning whatever you would like, but there is no way to prove that your opinion is the better opinion.

"If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about"
--

I do take the scientific definition of sex seriously, I just don't believe that Sex Assigned At Birth is the same as gender. Also, it is debated whether or not intersex is a separate sex from male and female, and the generally accepted answer is that yes, intersex is a completely different sex from male or female.

"They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread" --

This goes against most generally accepted science on the concept of the sexes, and ignores the proof that the person you are responding to lays down.

"Aside from the incorrect ambiguity in the opening, yes, 100%. But that doesn't say anything about policy. What 'society thinks' amounts to convention. Policy is a bit different, so best prize those apart."
--

Well, I still argue there is ambiguity, but I'm confused as to what you mean by policy. Who's policy?

"Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women." --

No, the study you quoted states that transwomen follow a similar trend as cis men for sexual violence (a bit less likely, actually), nowhere does it claim that transwomen are MORE likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man. As for '0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women', can you provide a source for this information?

Again, I fear you are confusing sex assigned at birth with gen — Wolfy48

I’m not confusing it at all. I’m saying your grafting on some meaningless nonsense is just that.

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. — Wolfy48

No he isn’t and the earth isn’t flat either

"I’m not confusing it at all." --
So why do you continue to say that sex is scientifically the same as gender? It's not.

"No he isn’t and the earth isn’t flat either" --

Well uhhhh... ok? I personally think that everyone is allowed to form their own opinions when science can't provide a clear answer...

And yet you use the fact that men are on average more likely to commit a sexual crime, even though it is a very small part of the population that does so, to justify how NO ONE born male can be trusted in a women's bathroom. — Wolfy48

No. This is an incredibly straw man.

I would add, though, that it is not as small-a-portion of the population as you seem to want it to be. That isn't the point. When it's always males, the prohibition is justified to reduce risk. We cannot, post-hoc, prevent harm.

They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread. — AmadeusD

I’m happy to stand corrected

"We cannot, post-hoc, prevent harm." --

And how does banning trans people from bathrooms accomplish preventing sexual assault?

So why do you continue to say that sex is scientifically the same as gender? It's not — Wolfy48

Because gender describes the societal and cultural differences between the sexes. It doesn’t mean a man becomes a woman. This is now law in my country. The madness has been curtailed.

Well uhhhh... ok? I personally think that everyone is allowed to form their own opinions when science can't provide a clear answer... — Wolfy48

It has.

"Because gender describes the societal and cultural differences between the sexes. It doesn’t mean a man becomes a woman." --

That's a valid opinion for you to have, but not one that everyone shares. I certainly don't think that the state should have the right to decide such matters of opinion for the people, but hey, not much I can do about it (yet)

And how does banning trans people from bathrooms accomplish preventing sexual assault? — Wolfy48

Replace trans people with the word men.

It has.
--

Idk man, how would you even scientifically prove how to interpret a definition?

"Replace trans people with the word men." --

Ok so now trans women can go to the women's bathroom, works for me ;3

That's a valid opinion for you to have, but not one that everyone shares. I certainly don't think that the state should have the right to decide such matters of opinion for the people, but hey, not much I can do about it (yet) — Wolfy48

It is fact. It is (thankfully) law in UK.
I have no issue with trans people dressind and living however they like. However, women have fought for certain rights and I don’t think it is for men to barge into their exclusive spaces. It’s not a wild out there stance surely?

Ok so now trans women can go to the bathroom, works for me ;3 — Wolfy48

They were never barred.

Idk man, how would you even scientifically prove how to interpret a definition? — Wolfy48

Sex is binary. It isn’t a spectrum. It isn’t an opinion

"However, women have fought for certain rights and I don’t think it is for men to barge into their exclusive spaces" --

And that's not a bad stance, except for all the people that have their identities violated by that interpretation.

omfg, I just responded to every point and it looks like the post has entirely disappeared. I apologise for that.

"Sex is binary. It isn’t a spectrum. It isn’t an opinion" --

The argument is on gender, not sex, and in any case, the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes... (though the others are uncommon)

the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes — Wolfy48

No they fucking don't. There has never been a single sex other than male and female suggested. Even by activists.

And how does banning trans people from bathrooms accomplish preventing sexual assault? — Wolfy48

the prohibition is justified to reduce risk — AmadeusD

It seems you cannot read. I'm out.

The argument is on gender, not sex, and in any case, the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes... (though the others are uncommon) — Wolfy48

We can agree to disagree. I have stated sex is binary and I don’t ascribe to the definition of gender that has been co opted by you and many others who seem happy to allow men to cosplay as women.