This led to the UK government declaring that "woman" refers to biology. — frank

Not quite. The ruling is that, “the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

It’s specifically in reference to this section:

In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

The court notes that there is already a section that protects gender reassignment, and so it would be redundant (as well as out of context) to take the words “man” and “woman” in section (a) and “sex” in section (b) to also refer to gender identity.

That's fine. I have some sympathy with your position when we're dealing with transgender issues. But the same arguments have been used for dealing with sexual orientation and race issues. At times, and sometimes still, most bodies want gay and black people to be classified as biologically, or at least socially or morally, atypical not to mention inferior. It's a bad argument in terms of what's right and wrong, but it's right politically - don't try to ram your values down your fellow citizen's throats. There are years of patient groundwork that has to accomplished first if you want to succeed in those kinds of social changes. — T Clark

There is a fundamental difference between trans and other issues.
A Black person is black, a homosexual is homosexual, A trans woman is not a woman.

Thanks.

A trans woman is not a woman. — Malcolm Parry

:up:

A Black person is black, — Malcolm Parry

My wife is at least as white as she is black, but she is clearly black. such are the mysteries of race-mixing. Our daughters are only slightly black, but are still black. And fuck your attempt to clarify reality for us all.

And fuck your attempt to clarify reality for us all. — unenlightened

That isn't very nice. My point is there is a huge difference between discriminating against Black people, homosexuals versus trans people. The two aren't equivalent at all. However, people seem to make snide insinuations to racism and homophobia.

I am aware Black people and white people are not monochrome.

That isn't very nice. — Malcolm Parry

Your racial absolutism wasn't very nice. And I didn't even mention black albinos, or non-negro blacks of Papua and Australia, or ...

And discrimination is discrimination, ha ha.

Your racial absolutism wasn't very nice. And I didn't even mention black albinos, or non-negro blacks of Papua and Australia, or ...

And discrimination is discrimination, ha ha. — unenlightened

I’m not sure you are the full shilling.

I’ll leave it there.

I’ll leave it there. — Malcolm Parry

Good idea, your flames are no substitute for an argument.

Good idea, your flames are no substitute for an argument. — unenlightened

I prefer discussion but it appears to be beyond you. Which is fine.

I prefer discussion but it appears to be beyond you. Which is fine. — Malcolm Parry

You prefer pontification; but only your own. I thought you were going to leave back there?

You prefer pontification; but only your own. I thought you were going to leave back there? — unenlightened

I’ll decide thanks.

If a series of concepts suits the better intellectual benefit of the many then why not adopt them and dictate it as such as its already been done in legal language as regards sex? — substantivalism

Sorry, but I still don’t see how this is relevant to what I said. I was just pointing out to @AmadeusD the possible consequences of his way of seeing things.

There is a fundamental difference between trans and other issues.
A Black person is black, a homosexual is homosexual, A trans woman is not a woman. — Malcolm Parry

You’re missing the point of my post to Amadeus D. Whether or not he, or you, think a trans woman is a woman, it doesn’t change the fact his argument has been used to deny basic rights to black and gay people.

I’m not here to argue about transgender issues. I am pointing out the consequences of his argument. Please, no more misrepresentations of what I wrote.

However, people seem to make snide insinuations to racism and homophobia. — Malcolm Parry

A question - is it still snide if it’s true?

My wife is at least as white as she is black, but she is clearly black. such are the mysteries of race-mixing. Our daughters are only slightly black, but are still black. — unenlightened

That is not only a social fact, during slavery it was a legal fact too.

That is not only a social fact, it used to be a legal fact too. — T Clark

In some ignorant benighted countries certainly.

Anti-miscegenation laws are laws that enforce racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage sometimes, also criminalizing sex between members of different races.

In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have been termed "miscegenation" since the term was coined in 1863. Contemporary usage of the term is infrequent, except in reference to historical laws which banned the practice. Anti-miscegenation laws were first introduced in North America by the governments of several of the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onward, and subsequently, they were introduced by the governments of many U.S. states and U.S. territories and they remained in force in many US states until 1967.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws


Thus the law was used to try and maintain the absolute separation of the races. The law creates the facts, and my family would have been illegal and therefore not a family. And I'm the one who's not nice, if not actually insane? Is there a polite way to call out bigotry?

You’re missing the point of my post to Amadeus D. Whether or not he, or you, think a trans woman is a woman, it doesn’t change the fact his argument has been used to deny basic rights to black and gay people. — T Clark

I see your point and mis interpreted what your thrust was. Slavery was fine in Ancient Greece and it was fine until it wasn’t. I agree.

A question - is it still snide if it’s true? — T Clark

Of course not.

In some ignorant benighted countries certainly. — unenlightened

After I posted I edited the post to say

That is not only a social fact, during slavery it was a legal fact too. — T Clark

I meant to refer to the US in particular.

Please, no more misrepresentations of what I wrote. — T Clark

It’s a discussion and sometimes people misinterpret what someone has wrote. My post has been misinterpreted and misrepresented but I care not. I’m not here to try and persuade someone that they got the wrong end of the stick.

I actually don't understand how biological absolutism has anything to do with the struggles of blacks and gays. How is it even vaguely related?

I actually don't understand how biological absolutism has anything to do with the struggles of blacks and gays. How is it even vaguely related? — frank

I have no idea. Ask the posters

I have no idea. — Malcolm Parry

I guess that makes two of us. :grin:

..
The way this is related to women's rights has to do with a Scottish law that required a certain number of women on local councils. This law was supposed to protect women's right to a voice. At first any self proclaimed woman could get on the council to meet the requirement. But then they started requiring paperwork, which could be a birth certificate. I'm guessing this improved the situation, but since a biological man can have the sex on his birth certificate changed, the women were still upset.

This started events in motion which had the UK Supreme Court declare that the requirement has to be met by biological women.

Can't a man, living as a woman, represent the voice of women? Why not?

they were introduced by the governments of many U.S. states and U.S. territories and they remained in force in many US states until 1967.

I was a junior in high school in a town in southern Virginia in 1967 when the most appropriately named case in legal history was decided - Loving vs the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In response to both of your responses to me, please note that the whole point of the disambiguation in the OP of this thread is to tease apart matters of a person’s feelings about themselves, and matters of a person’s social status, so if you think I’m only talking about the latter or conflating those two things together you’re missing the whole point.

We could set aside all the social stuff and still have your actual biology, your feelings about that biology (are you comfortable with it or do you wish it was different and if so how), and what biologies you’re attracted to in others: your sex, your sexual bearing (my new concept), and your sexual orientation.

Then separate from that, there’s your social status, how you are categorized by society in terms abstracted from that biological sex. In the OP, I left that as just one thing on its own (“gender”), separate from the new thing I introduced to distinguish from it (“bearing”). But since then I have realized that both bearing and orientation can apply independently to gender as well as to sex, so in addition to the three things at the end of last paragraph, there’s three social parallels of them: your gender, your gender bearing (how you feel about how society categorizes you, are you comfortable with it or do you wish it was different and if so how), and your gender orientation (what gender you find attractive in others).

You can ignore all that stuff if you want and just say something like “I have a dick, I like having it, and I want to fuck some pussy; I don’t care how society genders me or the people I find attractive, anything is fine there.” That means you have male sex, cisphoric sexual bearing, heterosexual orientation, presumably masculine gender (society probably genders you as a man), but neutral gender bearing and gender orientation (you don’t care how society genders you or the people you find attractive). And that’s fine; under my scheme you can say that clearly in a way that doesn’t conflict with anybody else’s similarly clear expression of their own different biological, sociological, or mental states.

I have no issue with anyone being and thinking whatever they want. How people feel about themselves and their status and how they feel about their biology and their sexual bearing is personal to all.
People need to work out where they fit in society and live their lives.
The issue is when their concept of themselves conflicts with how the world is currently ordered. Then decisions regarding certain aspects of society need to be made.

Imagine that we have a university that wants to make sure it's providing opportunities to women. To that end, they select students based on a quota.

Should they prioritize trans-women along with biological women?

Philosophically I don’t think anyone can jump the gap of their sex and become the opposite gender or non gender. The sex of a person is there for everyone to see unless there is significant surgery and synthetic hormones used. — Malcolm Parry

I agree with you Malcolm, I don't think there are philosophical arguments that negate biology. The whole 'trans women are women' movement is an example of what goes wrong when fringe views define the entire movement. There are lots of trans people who do NOT take that premise seriously - I remember Contrapoints talking about this issue thoughtfully on her (very interesting) Youtube channel.

I assume even the most radical trans advocate has acknowledged that female sports is not a place for trans women. — Malcolm Parry

Alas, not the case. Some of this woke stuff is a bit like research on doomsday cultists - the day of reckoning arrives, passes, and a number of cultists become even more committed to the premise.

A lot of people believe the IOC standards for testosterone are some kind of legit science. And a lot of people keep saying 'it's a tiny percentage of people' which, of course, ignores the fact that this 'tiny percentage' will only grow as trans kids grow up expecting to be able to play.

I have no issue with someone adopting the stereotypical norms of the opposite gender but that is cosplaying and does not reflect the reality that men and women can be whoever they like to be. — Malcolm Parry

Another failing of the fringe. Historically, cross-culturally, there have always been a small number of trans people - usually boys. Some societies are more tolerant, some less, but none of these people thought they were actually the other sex. That's a modern idea.

And of course, the genuinely trans people (likely a much smaller number than the number of people who claim the identity now) are getting hurt in the backlash.

Yes! Poor locker room design is the issue. Why do we have locker rooms that force us to differentiate on the basis of our genitalia? If the issue is modesty, why not have individual cubicles? — Banno

That would likely do it! But I'd rather see that going forward than as an imposed requirement, which is likely cost-prohibitive.

But this isn't just an issue of live and let live. There are bad actors self-identifying as trans to take advantage of vulnerable women. In fact, the best criticism of trans access to women-only spaces like prisons and locker rooms comes from second-wave feminists.

The whole 'they are deluded and needed to be disabused of their delusion' argument you see sometimes on the right is a useless red herring to me. Focus on bad actors, common sense on the sporting field and harm protection for youth and everybody does better, trans and cis alike.

The only people I can trust on this topic at this point are those that can identify problems with a radical stance on trans issues in progressive society AND who empathize with and support genuine trans people.

Do you view puberty blockers for youth as moral?