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. — Wolfy48

But the ones that aren’t. Are you happy for men to use them?

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. — substantivalism

From what I can glean here, I would say that those reasons can't be instantiated in law. They are social conditions. The entire point of policy is to be as neutral as possible. Whether you're in poverty or not, don't fucking kill people.

Then sky is the limit then. — substantivalism

Not sure what you're getting at - but yeah, policies should do their best to reduce harm to zero as balanced against rights to Freedom (which is an entirely different discussion. These are just formal observations, not details).

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

I still, as I intimated by asking for clarification, don't know what you're getting at or whether this is sarcastic even.

Yes, except — substantivalism

There is no 'except' in that further comment. I agree, it's something that needs discussing (and is regularly discussed ad infinitum (good!)). But the policies around bathrooms and policies around in-home reduction of harm do not meet. The public sphere is a totally different beast, policy-wise and day-to-day interaction-wise (lmao... fuck that phrase).

I can't quite grasp the overall nature of hte rest of your post. I'll try make some comments..

That leaves stronger segregation practices, exclusive spaces, and social outreach. — substantivalism

Stronger than...? They have been strict across most of history. Only recently has that back-slid to a point we may need to implement more. It's the over-relaxing of those segregative policies that has caused the issues. Harm abounds - but those relaxations have increased as against "traditional" policy (notice that this doesn't touch the in-home abuse which is obviously rife. It's a different beast).

The more its left alone to its own devices the more such and such statistics remain as they were. — substantivalism

That doesn't seem true, but I have not a lot else to add.

Personally I wouldn't ever commit myself to such 'strong-handed' approaches — substantivalism

Let me in on a couple-a things:

1. What, in your own words, is the exact problem that is in question?; and
2. What, in your own words, is the exact solution to it? (this one i realise probably wont be exact - I just want to avoid prevarication).

Change for the better is good. But his a change for the worse, evidenced by his plain contradiction. But let him reconcile it, if he can. — tim wood

I was interested in the syndrome did a bit of googling and the conclusion was that some people were a bit of both. It was a syndrome with 500 known cases. I was corrected by a poster and was happy to be corrected because tiny pockets of developmental defects doesn’t seem change the science of 8 billion people on the planet.
Why is the change for the worse?

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? — frank

Men who think they are women. It’s a bit long winded though.

But yeah, contradiction isn't good without expressing the mental change that's occurred. Maybe he can do so... — AmadeusD

I stated that I was happy to be corrected. I should not have gone down the intersex cul de sac which some are fixated on to give credence to their delusional misogyny.

You know what, let's just all pretend we are all biological essentialists/determinists. — substantivalism

Let's not.

If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. — AmadeusD

See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development

A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

...

Both the mother and daughter had normal SRY (sex-determining region of the Y chromosome) sequences...

Under your account, both of these people are biologically male?

Also of interest is Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father

Chimeras are the result of fusion of two zygotes to form a single embryo, producing an individual with genetically different kinds of tissue. If the fused zygotes are of different sex, the individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissues. The majority of these people are best reared as females and many pregnancies with living offspring have been reported in persons reared as females, and several cases has fathered a child.

...

A scenario is presented here for a woman to have a son without a father: she is a chimera of 46,XX/46,XY type resulting from the fusion of two zygotes of different sex types and she develops both ovary and testis in her body.

...

Both gonads are functional and produce spermatozoa and oocyte respectively after puberty. At the time of ovulation, estrogens increase the motility of the oviduct on the left side which results in a negative pressure in the tube and oocyte and sperms are picked-up into the tube with the help of this vacuum effect, taking both gametes to the fertilization site in the oviduct. Since the sperm contains a Y chromosome, this fertilization gives rise to a XY male embryo.

Although there have been no documented cases of self fertilization, it is not prima facie biologically impossible.

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. — AmadeusD

I understand that you believe that a human is a biological male if and only if they have at least one cell with an active SRY gene (and female otherwise), and that having an active SRY gene is a binary trait with no ambiguity or degree.

And I am pointing out that this is a flawed understanding of both human biology and the English adjectives "male" and "female".

I was interested in the syndrome did a bit of googling and the conclusion was that some people were a bit of both. It was a syndrome with 500 known cases. I was corrected by a poster and was happy to be corrected because tiny pockets of developmental defects doesn’t seem change the science of 8 billion people on the planet.
Why is the change for the worse? — Malcolm Parry

I think he's pointing out that you started by claiming that every human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female without exception, then you accepted that at least 500 people are an exception, but then later went back to claiming that there are no exceptions.

I think he's pointing out that you started by claiming that every human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female without exception, then you accepted that at least 500 people are an exception, but then later went back to claiming that there are no exceptions. — Michael

I was corrected by AmadeusD.
Even if there are 500 anomalies that is exactly what they are. No spectrum

I was corrected by AmadeusD.
Even if there are 500 anomalies that is exactly what they are. No spectrum — Malcolm Parry

Then I’ll ask the question I asked before:

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

A man has XY & lacks XX.

A man has XY & lacks XX. — frank

Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?

Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?

Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female?

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? — Wolfy48

Wrong.
I am the one not cherry-picking resources. Noticed how pointed out one of the statements in what I quoted as supporting his argument because I'm not hiding anything. He is the one that took that one statement out of context and continues to do so. I acknowledged that there are instances where it would not be a fallacy to accept what an authority has said. It is you and Michael that refuse to acknowledge that there are instances where appealing to authority is a fallacy. That is the difference.

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. — Wolfy48

Wrong.
It means the topic is still debatable. You assume the issue is resolved because it aligns with what your political party is telling you and you don't question what your political party tells you.

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. — Wolfy48

Wrong again.

Woman: 1 a: an adult female person
Female: 1 a: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs — Merriam-Webster.com

A large amount of women would disagree that acting like a Kardashian isn't what it means to be a woman and is actually sexist to think that. Gender-based stereotypes are sexist. You are condoning sexism. You are the one offending people.

So, which is it? Is gender a feeling or a social construct?" -- ↪Harry Hindu
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. — Wolfy48

Wrong.

The social construction isn't what society expects a gender to act or look like. It is was society expects a sex to act like. Wearing a dress is not what it means to be a woman any more than wearing parachute pants is what it means to be Michael Jackson.

Besides, isn't wearing clothes and acting like people from another culture considered culture appropriation, or racial appropriation? Why isn't a man wearing a dress considered sexual appropriation?

Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?

Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?

Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female? — Michael

I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XY AND no-XY. Simple.

I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XX AND no-XY. Simple. — frank

Because there are people who do not fit within this binary classification.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong.

Because there are people who do not fit within this binary classification.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male or a biological female is wrong. — Michael

But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers on a hand, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers on a hand and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? You don't necessarily need all the traits (even though a vast majority do have all the traits). You just need a majority of the traits.

But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? — Harry Hindu

I'm responding to @frank's claim that someone is biologically male if and only if they (only) have an XY karyotype and biologically female if and only if they (only) have an XX karyotype.

He's the one trying to define "biologically male" and "biologically female" according to a singular trait, not me.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong. — Michael

I would say a. I'm thinking of it from a healthcare provider's point of view. Biological male = XY, but not XX. Biological female = XX, but not XY.

All other cases would be handled on individual bases. It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. It's just important to know how their genetic makeup impacts the course of their care.

I'm responding to frank's claim that someone is biologically male if and only if they (only) have an XY karyotype and biologically female if and only if they (only) have an XX karyotype.

He's the one trying to define "biologically male" and "biologically female" according to a singular trait, not me. — Michael

It's nice to see we agree.

It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. — frank

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white.

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white. — Michael

I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. That's a non-starter.

I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. — frank

No, I am trying to explain to them that it is not the case that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

There are real people who really exist who do not fit within such a neat and tidy dichotomy.

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white. — Michael

You are inconsistent, so I'll repeat myself:
But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers on a hand, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers on a hand and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? You don't necessarily need all the traits (even though a vast majority do have all the traits). You just need a majority of the traits.

Is there ambiguity in being a human?

No, I am trying to explain to them that it is not the case that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

There are real people who really exist who do not fit within such a neat and tidy dichotomy. — Michael

Good. So you admit that biological sex is a very important and meaningful distinction. :up:

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia. — Michael

Even sex-discordant chimeras can have a normal male or female phenotype. Only 28 of the 50 individuals with a 46,XX/46,XY karyotype were either true hermaphrodites or had ambiguous genitalia.

That is total number of cases of this disorder that are known. I would say 28 out of say 12 billion. is not statistically significant number to overhaul the binary nature of sex.

But ambiguous does not mean a third sex, surely?

Can one be unambiguously human? — Harry Hindu

Do you mean to ask if one can be ambiguously human?

Because to answer your literal question, I would say that I am unambiguously human.

I rephrased the question:

Is there ambiguity in being a human? — Harry Hindu

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white. — Michael

28 out of 12 billion seems fairly black and white.

That is total number of cases of this disorder that are known. I would say 28 out of say 12 billion. is not statistically significant number to overhaul the binary nature of sex. — Malcolm Parry

Just one counterexample is sufficient to disprove your claim that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

Just one counterexample is sufficient to disprove your claim that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female. — Michael

The point is that it isn't an counterexample if we go by the definition that being anything means having a majority of the traits for that thing.