"We can agree to disagree." --

I concur, there is no use arguing over whose opinion is scientifically correct, as neither can be 'correct'. I don't agree with your views, but their YOUR views, not mine.

except for all the people that have their identities violated by that interpretation. — Wolfy48

It isn’t my responsibility to affirm someone’s wishes. I’m not going to play along especially if this violates female rights to exclusive areas.

there is no use arguing over whose opinion is scientifically correc — Wolfy48

Do you think scientific facts are opinions that you may or may not disagree with?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Giveth and taken away, see above. Hmm. Unless "female" and "male" do not correspond to sex. — tim wood

Enlighten me

"I’m not going to play along especially if this violates female rights to exclusive areas."
--

Look, I know this is coming from a good place but that is the same excuse that people used to justify racial segregation in the States

"Do you think scientific facts are opinions that you may or may not disagree with?" --

No, facts are facts. But when a fact is undecided on, then it can't really be used in an argument, and facts have no bearing on interpretation and opinion. It is a decided fact that people can be born male or female. It is an undecided fact that they can be born something else, rarely. It is an opinion that sex and gender are not the same thing.

Look, I know this is coming from a good place but that is the same excuse that people used to justify racial segregation in the States — Wolfy48

You think men should be able to use women’s bathrooms?

. But when a fact is undecided on, — Wolfy48

It isn’t.

"You think men should be able to use women’s bathrooms?" -- \

Quite frankly, I think that bathrooms should just be individual locking rooms, like what you see at most restaurants. For me the issue isn't whether or not the people in the room have dicks, it's the fact that there's people in the room.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Are you suggesting there's something untoward about adjusting one's view in light of discussion or evidence? It seems that way, so if something else is in question please be clearer...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think those were at different times? I think he was also under the impression some other commenters gave evidence - but I had put paid to. I'm unsure I see an issue there... I often contradict myself pre- and post-information assimilation :) But yeah, contradiction isn't good without expressing the mental change that's occurred. Maybe he can do so...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Just so. :)

So if you don't call them trans-women, what do you call them?

I think, more than most cases, I'm OK to ask what your motivation for asking is?

Three reasons:

1. super loaded;
2. I've not said I don't/wouldn't;
3. I have said that in at least half of any given instances, it is socially incumbent to do so.

This seems muddled and not asking anything in particular??

Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. And it has been relatively clear that most bodies want "male" and "female" to be defined classes with a range of attributes that are biologically typical. So far, so simple.

Why might this matter? Sports, healthcare, legal protections incl. relationship imbalance, workplace harrassment, privacy laws, certain crimes are sex-specific and much else besides. Much of society is informed, fundamentally, by the sex engaging in a given activity. This is basis for most political theorizing around resource, power and social justice. Males and females are different. How do we account for, and equivocate that?

That is a clear answer. Have I missed something in the question?

Oh, I think I confused you with someone else. :grimace:

I just got through reading about a person called Dr Helen Joyce, a former mathematician/journalist who is now an anti-trans activist. She says "trans woman" doesn't make any sense, and I can see her point. But if you don't call them that, what do you call them?

Yes, I know Helen (personally, in a very vague way).
Yeah, i get the point too but I'm unsure what else you could say besides "trans-identified male" which seems cumbersome, if not kind of a dick move.

Yes, I know Helen (personally, in a very vague way). — AmadeusD

What? For real?

Yes, barely. Not in a way that I am even sure she would recognise me now.

Though, I have interacted with her plenty over the internet (well, prior to about June 2023) and she might recognise my profiles in that capacity but I doubt it.

She seems like a really cool person.

Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. — AmadeusD

. . . and? Are we supposed to ignore the decrease in certain social roles with complete ambivalence?

Conservatives make this a clear and ever present worry of there's. For a while now.

Why might this matter? Sports, healthcare, legal protections incl. relationship imbalance, workplace harrassment, privacy laws, certain crimes are sex-specific and much else besides. Much of society is informed, fundamentally, by the sex engaging in a given activity. This is basis for most political theorizing around resource, power and social justice. Males and females are different. How do we account for, and equivocate that? — AmadeusD

More so, if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects?

. . . and? Are we supposed to ignore the decrease in certain social roles with complete ambivalence? — substantivalism

I'm not entirely sure what the question is - what decrease are you talking about? In any case, 'roles' are not what policy aims to talk about. The 'roles' we play are identities and generally not subject to policy. The harms that might result tend to be. Which doesn't butter much bread for you, I can see, but it at least separates the two questions about "what's happening with identity and gender roles" and then what's going on with sex, and how this does not change.

if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects? — substantivalism

.......please, PLEASE do not be this obtuse. The harm. The fucking HARM from the inequity.

I'm not entirely sure what the question is - what decrease are you talking about? In any case, 'roles' are not what policy aims to talk about. — AmadeusD

Then call it social engineering or social outreach but its a discussion that is required to be had.

The 'roles' we play are identities and generally not subject to policy. — AmadeusD

They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do.

The harms that might result tend to be. Which doesn't butter much bread for you, I can see, but it at least separates the two questions about "what's happening with identity and gender roles" and then what's going on with sex, and how this does not change. — AmadeusD

Ergo, in cases of extreme enough inter-group conflict we can and have fully separated out groups. Segregation practices and closed borders. The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out.

We've done it in select private spaces, in prisons, and even rather naturally in terms of communities that attract or are filled with a particular nationality/racial class/religion/etc. The follow up question is to what degree do we do this in a social context? Whether we enforce it vocally and explicitly?

The mere allotment of that proximity allows this. Literally allowing say, gender neutral bathrooms, is itself a boost to those statistics we are so worried about. In fact, getting rid of them would seem more amenable besides just adding new exclusive woman's spaces. The mere existence of them breeds that statistic as does this extend to any other context in terms of close proximity of select classes.

.......please, PLEASE do not be this obtuse. The harm. The fucking HARM from the inequity. — AmadeusD

Have you seen the inequality in these statistics? On the Crime Data Explorer over the past five years we've had around apparently 85.77% of rapes committed by males alone. Those are merely the ones nationally reported.

Most of them a staggering 70% have committed this crime in a residence or home!

They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do. — substantivalism

Your thread/questions are about policy.

The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out. — substantivalism

Zero, if deaths or grievous harm are involved (or, more properly 1 - instance, per-cent, whatever you like. 1 is enough).

Whether we enforce it vocally and explicitly? — substantivalism

Plenty of groups do this. Can you clarify the question?

In fact, getting rid of them would seem more amenable besides just adding new exclusive woman's spaces. — substantivalism

Fwiw, my solution is "neutral" and "female". Sounds like it's not far off something you'd be ok with?

Those are merely the ones nationally reported. — substantivalism

This response makes my point with much more vigour than I put into it. Was that the intent?

Your thread/questions are about policy. — AmadeusD

. . . or legal language. . . or person-person interactions. As I said at the top. People are rather quick to lay down the law of the land and policy as they suddenly turn extremely neutral on the issues for some reason. As if those previous class based reasons didn't still matter as to the judgement in enacting whatever we were going to do policy wise.

Zero, if deaths or grievous harm are involved (or, more properly 1 - instance, per-cent, whatever you like. 1 is enough). — AmadeusD

Then sky is the limit then. We'd need to hit the ground running otherwise it will continue as it has been.

Plenty of groups do this. Can you clarify the question? — AmadeusD

Then we should be fine to state it loud and proud no skirting around it. Agreed.

Fwiw, my solution is "neutral" and "female". Sounds like it's not far off something you'd be ok with? — AmadeusD

Yes, except as those statistics noted that isn't the only place this conflict resides. . . it's literally in our homes and residences. Many of these offenders and victims seemed to know each other even. Friends, family members, acquittances, etc.

This response makes my point with much more vigour than I put into it. Was that the intent? — AmadeusD

Yes, partly, because I want out of people honesty as to what they are doing as well as further actions to be taken. Legality has been talked to death and nothing more can be added aside from adding life sentencing or flattening sentencing across the sex spectrum equally. Morality is a no go as you and me would both avoid any of these options if we could help it but like difficult decisions in a war context we cannot do so.

That leaves stronger segregation practices, exclusive spaces, and social outreach. The latter is what I've mentioned before having to be in analogy to sex education given in most public schools which attempt to rear the next generation in some form. That or social groups created to attempt to de-radicalize their neighbors. Here is a study that covers some of those approaches.

If all else failed and we still desired as always zero percentage attainment then what else is there to do than to strong hand the public itself. The more its left alone to its own devices the more such and such statistics remain as they were. Especially if we are waiting on the veracity or successfulness of specific social programs to get back to us.

Personally I wouldn't ever commit myself to such 'strong-handed' approaches but I can't say so for you, any other person on this forum, or the entire United States as well as those in office.

sigh*

Actually that was interesting to research.I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY
— Malcolm Parry
It certainly isn’t a spectrum like some claim.
— Malcolm Parry
Because there are only two sexes. Male and female
— Malcolm Parry
— tim wood
Emphasis added. — tim wood

Sigh*

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