You're getting a little speculative there. — frank

Yep.

It’s interesting to consider how and why the social and cultural differences between men and women have developed over time. I suspect things were very different in the Paleolithic.

I'm suggesting the possibility that the majority of the differences between sexes found in the article you linked are cultural, social, and otherwise "learned." — Outlander

It does say as much:

Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors.

...

Such variation may be innate, learned, or both.

...

A number of factors combine to influence the development of sex differences, including genetics and epigenetics; differences in brain structure and function; hormones, and socialization.

...

Both biological and social/environmental factors have been studied for their impact on sex differences. Separating biological from environmental effects is difficult, and advocates for biological influences generally accept that social factors are also important.

So I suppose there's likely a sort of feedback loop across the centuries, with any initial social and cultural differences between the sexes stemming from "natural" psychological differences, and then these social and cultural differences being the cause of further "nurtured" psychological differences which in turn drive further social and cultural differences.

And I am asking you how it logically follows that these distinctions qualify as sexual differences if they occur across both sexes. — Harry Hindu

Presumably because of their prevalence. If some trait is typical of 98% of biological men but only 2% of biological women then it’s an example of a sex difference, but you’re better off asking a psychologist, not me.

I’ve linked to the article, it has a list of references, so do the research if you’re unwilling to trust it at face value.

I explained it very clearly above.

There are sex differences in psychology.

These differences drive the development of gender expression and gender roles in society – expressions and roles which have absolutely nothing to do with karyotype and almost nothing to do with phenotype.

Almost all biological men "belong" to the same psychological/social/cultural group, and so we (also) name this psychological/social/cultural group "men".

Almost all biological women "belong" to the same psychological/social/cultural group, and so we (also) name this psychological/social/cultural group "women".

But some biological men and some biological women do not "fit" within the typical psychological/social/cultural group that members of their biological sex usually "belong" to. Some push the boundaries of one group or the other, and so identify as "gender non-conforming", some "fit" somewhere in the middle, and so identify as "non-binary", and some "fit" within the psychological/social/cultural group that is typical of the opposite biological sex, and so identify as "transgender".

It's really not that hard to understand.

What isn't the case – contrary to your continued misrepresentations – is that transgender women are "biological men who believe they are biological women" or that transgender men are "biological women who believe they are biological men".

The delusion is that there is more to being a woman than having XX Chromosomes, ovaries and vagina. — Harry Hindu

So their delusion is in thinking that the English noun "woman" doesn't just mean "an adult human with an XX karyotype, ovaries, and a vagina"?

Well, this isn't a delusion because it's true. The English noun "woman" doesn't just mean this. It has more than one meaning. It can also refer to a non-biological gender.

And even if it were false, thinking that a word means something it doesn't hardly qualifies as a type of psychosis.

Why are we even talking about sex genitalia in a thread about gender? Again, why should it matter what sex parts one has (and to even call artificial sex parts, "sex parts" is questionable) if gender is a feeling and/or social construct? — Harry Hindu

Because people like you are claiming that things like bathrooms and changing rooms ought be divided by biological sex. So why? What is the relevant difference between biological men and biological women such that they ought get changed in different rooms? Why don't we all get changed in the same room?

Still talking about differences in sexes....

If these properties exist in both males and females then how can you say that these mental functions and behaviors are distinctions of sex rather than simply being part of the variety that exists among all humans? Also, are these mental functions and behaviors of each sex consistent across all cultures? If so, we would be talking about something biological, not cultural. — Harry Hindu

I don't understand what you're asking here.

There are observable psychological differences between the sexes. How much of this is nature and how much is nurture is still an open question, though it's likely that both play a role.

But this isn't some absolute distinction such that every biological male has one type of psychology and every biological female has the other type of psychology. There are people who fall in between, and there are biological males who share the type of psychology typical of biological females and biological females who share the type of psychology typical of biological males.

A man wearing a dress and believes that now makes him a woman has a delusional disorder. — Harry Hindu

Your phrasing equivocates. You call the transgender woman a "man", suggesting that by "man" you are referring to biological sex, and so presumably by "woman" you are also referring to biological sex?

But as has been explained many times before, the biological man who identifies as a woman doesn’t identify as having XX chromosomes, ovaries, or a vagina, and so your claim is an obvious misrepresentation.

Given that the transgender woman doesn't identify as a biological woman, what delusion is it you think she has?

What would one's bottom have to do with where you can change clothes? — Harry Hindu

You tell me. Why do we have separate men's and women's changing rooms at all? Surely it has something to do with phenotype? If so, then it stands to reason that any biological man with a female phenotype – even if artificial – ought use the women's changing room and any biological woman with a male phenotype – even if artificial – ought use the men's changing room.

There's certainly no good reason for something like karyotype to be at all relevant.

And invoking the term, "psychological" just reinforces my assertion that we are dealing with a delusional disorder. You are ignoring all the problems I posed by defining gender as a social construct. You continue to be intellectually dishonest. I have responded to each and every point you have made in your posts yet you cannot show the same respect.

I have also been asking which feelings one has that makes one a man or woman. You can't even explain what it means to be a man or woman for yourself. What feelings are you referring to when you assert you are one or the other? How am I suppose to understand what you mean when you won't explain what you mean?

How can one's feelings be gender and a social construct be gender when a trans-person's feelings is at odds with the social construct? — Harry Hindu

There are sex differences in psychology. These differences are what drive the development of gender expression and gender roles in society – expressions and roles which have absolutely nothing to do with karyotype and almost nothing to do with phenotype.

The psychology of most biological males is similar enough that they identify as belonging to the same gender, and the psychology of most biological females is similar enough that they identify as belonging to the same gender. But psychology is complex and a gradient, not straightforward and black and white. Some are gender non-conforming but still identify as (mostly) "belonging" to one gender or the other, some do not identify as "belonging" to either gender – or as "belonging" to both – and some identify as "belonging" to the gender that is most predominantly occupied by the opposite biological sex.

A society where people that do not wear clothes would be genderless as well. — Harry Hindu

It's not just about clothes. But, sure, in some idealised society that has no gender roles and where there is never any kind of separation or difference between biological males and biological females (outside of reproduction and reproductive health), and assuming for the sake of argument that sex differences in psychology are explained entirely by nurture and not by nature, then perhaps transgenderism wouldn't occur (although gender dysphoria might) – but we don't live in such a world.

You seem to be suggesting that anything that is socially or culturally "caused" therefore isn't "real"? That would be a non sequitur.

However, stories abound of kids who decide on a whim they want to be of the opposite sex, and manage to receive hormone therapies and whatnot without ever seeing a psychologist or even without their parents consent. — Tzeentch

Sure, but that’s a reason to better regulate the treatment; it’s not a reason to dismiss the treatment as an option entirely.

What about an alternative, non-invasive treatment - teaching a child to accept the healthy, natural body they have been born with? — Tzeentch

That’s usually where it starts. But it’s naive to presuppose that all cases of gender dysphoria and the like can be treated merely by psychotherapy and non-hormonal medication. It’s when this fails that other approaches are necessary.

That’s true about all children’s medical issues, and is why doctors, parents, and (when relevant) psychiatrists are also involved in the decision making.

As a related example is when the decision is made on how best to treat someone born intersex. Sometime this requires surgery to “make” them a boy or a girl.

And that's another reason transitioning should only be for mature adults. A fair number of detransitioned youths say they thought they could actually change to the opposite sex. They learned through experience post-transition, that you can't actually do that. — frank

This is where there is some difficulty. On the one hand, children are likely too young to make such drastic medical decisions, but on the other hand transitioning before puberty is likely easier and has more satisfactory results than transitioning after puberty.

I suppose we have to determine whether or not the rate of regret is sufficiently high to warrant erring on the side of caution.

Why should women have to give up their hard fought for rights to men? — Malcolm Parry

They’re not.

Whether that's a viable option seems to depend heavily on whether or not a person passes for the other sex.

This is probably the elephant in the room that is rarely talked about, because it's obviously an unfortunate thing to have to tell someone that they are unable to pass for the opposite sex, but it's the reality for many. — Tzeentch

The specific case I had in mind were those who have had bottom surgery.

It seems bizarre to say that trans men with an artificial penis ought use the women’s changing room and trans women with artificial breasts and an artificial vagina ought use the men’s changing room.

I'm not sure what the authorities could do to accommodate them. — Malcolm Parry

Let them use the women’s changing room. They shouldn’t be required to use the men’s changing room.

because many women feel threatened and uncomfortable when men are are around when they are undressing — Malcolm Parry

And I’m sure trans women who have surgically transitioned feel the same.

Incidentally, speaking of changing rooms - what does one do if a man wants to take his young daughter, or a woman her young son, to the swimming bath? This is a genuine problem that arises from the separation, however our current question is resolved. Obviously a babe in arms has to go with the parent; obviously a teen has to go on their own. Where is the line between them? And for children with Downs' or other disability? Would you send your 4 yr old to get changed on their own? (This is a genuine social dilemma I have faced with my daughter) — unenlightened

I would have thought that anywhere that has children being undressed would have private cubicles.

That’s how it was the last time I went swimming (years ago). There weren’t separate men’s and women’s changing rooms, just individual cubicles that anyone could use.

Which we disagree on. — Malcolm Parry

So why is that?

Prima facie there’s no good reason to treat people with an XX karyotype and people with an XY karyotype differently. Outside of any medical issues, what relevance is DNA to everyday life?

And prime facie there’s no good reason to treat people with ovaries and people with testes differently. Outside of any medical issues or sexual reproduction, what relevance are gonads to everyday life?

And prime facie there’s no good reason to treat people with a penis and people with a vagina differently. Outside of any medical issues or sexual reproduction, what relevance are genitals to everyday life? Perhaps it’s only relevant wherever nudity is a thing?

The question we have to then ask is why are there social and cultural differences between the sexes? Is it because of biological differences, or are biological differences merely incidental? Are there social and cultural differences between the sexes because of psychological differences between the sexes? If so, and if there are people who are biologically female but have a psychology closer to the typical biological male than to the typical biological female then it makes more sense for this individual to be treated like the typical biological male - precisely because in everyday life our psychology is much more important than our DNA, our gonads, and our genitals.

I disagree — Malcolm Parry

Which goes back to what I said on page 8.

I think that many of these discussions tend to get caught up in pointless arguments about what the “real” meaning of a word is.

If you choose to use the words "man" and "woman" to refer to the general biological dichotomy found in humans, then fine. If you choose to the use the words to refer to some general psychological or social dichotomy, then fine. It simply doesn't matter.

The pertinent question is: should bathrooms, sports teams, prisons, etc. be divided by biological sex, by gender identity, by something else, or by nothing at all? — Michael

Gender was a word to describe the social and cultural characteristics of the two sexes.

So a man (Adult Human male) is acting in the manner associated with the social and cultural characteristics of a woman (Adult Human Female). — Malcolm Parry

One can psychologically identify as belonging to the social and cultural group that is usually occupied by the opposite biological sex.

And words like “man” and “woman” can refer either to a person of a particular biological sex or to a person who belongs to the particular social and cultural group usually occupied by a particular biological sex. Usually these are congruent, but sometimes they’re not.

You could say they're men acting like women. — RogueAI

What does that mean?

If “woman” means “biologically female” then to act like a woman is to act biologically female. But what does it mean to act biologically female?

Does it mean to act as if one has an XX karyotype? What does that mean?

Does it mean to act as if one has ovaries and a womb? What does that mean?

The fact that you even use a phrase like “act like a woman” shows at least a partial understanding of gender-as-distinct-from-sex.

This is one of the reasons liberals have been having a tough time in elections and it's just wrong. Trans men aren't women. They're men pretending to be women. — RogueAI

Even if that were true, that has nothing to do with how laws work.

They could have written the law in this way:

A1. At least 50% of the board must be X
A2. The term “X” in (1) means “cisgender women or transgender women”

But instead they wrote it this way:

B1. At least 50% of the board must be women
B2. The term “women” in (1) means “cisgender women or transgender women”

The only issue with B is that B2 is incompatible with the EA 2010. Had the law been written as A then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently.

Yet you assert that a trans-woman has a vagina when what they actually have is an open wound that they have to use medical grade stents to keep open. Any misunderstanding I have is a result of your inability to define the terms you are using in a meaningful way. — Harry Hindu

Call it whatever you like. A random stranger in the same room isn’t going to be able to tell the difference between a natural and an artificial set of genitals.

A trans man who has had bottom surgery ought use the men’s changing room and a trans woman who has had bottom surgery ought use the women’s changing room.

Their chromosomes and the genitals they were born with are irrelevant.

No wonder I couldn't find what I was looking for. I was asking about their feeling of what it means to be a man or woman. You're now talking about cultural norms which are the antithesis of personal feelings. — Harry Hindu

Try reading it again. You’ll see that the word “psychological” was listed.

but you were the one asserting that words have an unambiguous meaning — Harry Hindu

No I wasn’t. Many words have ambiguous meanings. Many words have multiple meanings. I’m not the one asking for some singular definition of “male gender”, just as I’m not the one claiming that there’s some singular definition of “male sex”. Language and biology and psychology and society and culture are not that simple. The world is a complex place, and is precisely why any essentialist approach to the issue is doomed to fail.

Question: is the law symmetrically constructed so as to protect men? That is, within this law are males and females protected equally and in the same way, implicitly or explicitly? The Scots would have apparently been willing to vote a dude into a woman's seat, but would they allow a woman into a man's? — tim wood

There's no such thing as a "man's seat" or a "woman's seat". The law in question simply states:

The 'gender representation objective' for a public board is that it has 50% of non-executive members who are women.

...

"woman" includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment [to female]...

and things like this law you referenced about women getting 50% of the seats on boards. — RogueAI

The law could have instead been written as:

(1) The “gender representation objective” for a public board is that it has 50% of non-executive members who are women or who have a female GRC (within the meaning of the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

Which was their intention when they wrote the law.

Unfortunately for them it was written a different way:

(1) The “gender representation objective” for a public board is that it has 50% of non-executive members who are women
(2) “woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.

Allowing (2) to be overruled by the EA 2010.

Autism spectrum? — frank

Huh?

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right? — frank

Yes.

Specifically, see here:

Key definitions

In this Act—

...

“woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.

The Supreme Court ruled that this contradicts UK law, and so the Scottish parliament were required to repeal that definition:

In section 2 (key definitions) of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, the definition of “woman” is repealed.

Did you mean "excludes" there? — frank

No. It includes those with a GRC and is why the issue was raised. Scottish Women Ltd argued that that inclusion is contrary to the EA 2010 and that the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to contradict UK law.

Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women? — frank

Are these supposed to be related questions? Because the Supreme Court didn't rule on whether or not anyone's rights were endangered. They only ruled that:

A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010. That in turn means that the definition of “woman” in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish Ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.

In other words, the Scottish parliament passed a law with these two provisions:

1. Women ought make up at least 50% of the board
2. The term "woman" in (1) includes anyone with a female GRC

Section (2) conflicts with the EA 2010 which defines the term "woman" to only include biological women. Given that the EA 2010 as UK law takes precedence over Scots law, section (2) is overruled, and the legal meaning of the term "woman" in Section (1) only includes biological women.

The ruling explicitly says in its second paragraph:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy.

It doesn't explain what they mean when using the terms man and woman, which is why you cant point to it in the links you provided. — Harry Hindu

The very first line of the very first link:

"Gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender."

So, we have a fuzzy collection of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral stuff that we group together and label "man" and another fuzzy collection of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral stuff that we group together and label "woman", and sometimes a third fuzzy collection of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral stuff that we group together and give a different label.

Included in this fuzzy collection is basically anything where we have a separate "men's X" or "women's X" and where "X" is not a description of genitals or chromosomes or the like.

The group that one "belongs" to is almost determined by one's biology, and in particular one's phenotype, and is the reason why the same word is used to refer both to gender and to sex. This has, unfortunately, caused many to conflate the two.

Define essentialism then. — Harry Hindu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

It seems that we would need to define these things to even hope to answer these other questions. — Harry Hindu

No, we don't.

I only suggested that we not use the words "man" and "woman" because you are having so much trouble understanding what they mean when discussing gender. Presumably we both have a clear understanding of what "bathroom" and "penis" and "vagina" mean.

What prevents us from talking past each other when using these terms? — Harry Hindu

That's precisely the problem, and is what I brought up on page 8:

I think that many of these discussions tend to get caught up in pointless arguments about what the “real” meaning of a word is.

If you choose to use the words "man" and "woman" to refer to the general biological dichotomy found in humans, then fine. If you choose to the use the words to refer to some general psychological or social dichotomy, then fine. It simply doesn't matter.

The pertinent question is: should bathrooms, sports teams, prisons, etc. be divided by biological sex, by gender identity, by something else, or by nothing at all?

So let's not use the words "man", "woman", "male", or "female" at all, and ask a single question:

Should bathrooms be divided by biological sex, by something else, or by nothing at all?

where in these wiki links does it explain what one means when they claim to be a woman or man? — Harry Hindu

Start on line 1, finish on whatever line is last.

What properties are we referring to — Harry Hindu

Essentialism is a dead-end philosophy. Whether we're discussing biology or psychology, there is no unambiguous set of necessary and sufficient conditions. You might as well ask "what is a game?"

If you don't understand gender then fine. You don't need to. You just need to accept that trained psychologists and sociologists understand that they exist, understand what they are, and understand that transgender people ought be respected for who they are – not as merely biological machines but as conscious individuals with all the mental faculties and fuzzy categories that this entails.

I'm talking about the actual perverts, whether they be trans or not, entering women's bathrooms. — Harry Hindu

So trans women ought not be allowed to use women's bathrooms because perverts exist? That's terrible reasoning.

And, again, the studies show that trans-inclusive bathroom policies do not put cisgender women at a greater risk of sexual assault and rape. Someone who's willing to rape someone is also willing to walk into a bathroom that they're not supposed to.

You're still avoiding the question as to what anyone means when using these terms. Just because something has been done for thousands of years doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. — Harry Hindu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

Male is a sex. — Harry Hindu

And a gender. Words can have more than one meaning.

Women are uncomfortable with men in their bathroom and the threat they face is rape — Harry Hindu

I've already addressed this. Trans-inclusive bathroom policies do not put cisgender women at a greater risk of rape. Trans women are not just perverts and rapists pretending to be women so that they can more easily sexually assault biological women.

And why would you be co-opting terms originally used to refer to sex if gender and sex and seperate? — Harry Hindu

It's not co-opting terms. Transgender (and third gender) people have existed and have been talked about for thousands of years.

The ruling was about seats on public boards. Should seats that were guaranteed to women be given to trans women? The women in Scotland said no. — frank

That's not how the law works.

I'll quote from the ruling:

1. The Scottish Parliament passed the 2018 Act to provide for positive action measures to be taken in relation to the appointment of women to non-executive posts on boards of certain Scottish public authorities. The 2018 Act sets out a gender representation objective for a public board which is that “it has 50% of non-executive members who are women”.

2. The act the provides a definition of "woman" that includes "a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010)".

3. It was challenged and affirmed that "the definition of 'woman' in section 2 of the 2018 Act was outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament".

Which is just to say that the Scottish Parliament does not have the authority to define the legal term "woman". Only the UK Parliament has the authority to define the legal term "woman", and the meaning of this term is established by section 11 of the Equality Act 2010, and refers only to biological women.

do you think they felt that way? — frank

I don't know, I'm not a mind reader.

What about women's rights? Nobody even wants to mention the issue that brought on the recent UK ruling. — frank

Everyone mentions that. In fact, “women’s rights” is usually the very thing that is used to argue against “trans rights”.

Aren't women's rights enough of a concern to even talk about it? — frank

Everyone’s rights matter. Men’s, women’s, cis, trans, black, white, straight, gay.

But when it comes to something like bathrooms, it’s hard to see how person A using a bathroom affects person B’s rights. One person using a private cubicle to take a piss has no impact on anyone else.

Even if that were true, it’s not always obvious.

Do you think it’s acceptable for a trans man with a penis, and who is indistinguishable from the typical cisgender man, to get naked in the women’s changing rooms?

Do you think it’s acceptable for a trans woman with a vagina, and who is indistinguishable from the typical cisgender woman, to get naked in the men’s changing rooms?

The reasonable answer to both questions is “no”. The trans man with a penis should use the men’s changing rooms and the trans woman with a vagina should use the women’s changing rooms.

So you think a penis or lack of penis is important criteria in changing rooms? Is that correct?

I would prefer women to decide and if they were all happy to include everyone, so be it. But they aren’t and I’m aligned with women who want women’s spaces exclusively for women. — Malcolm Parry

How is a cisgender woman to know if the person naked next to them is a trans man with an artificial penis and not a cisgender man with a natural penis?

How is a cisgender woman to know if the person naked next to them is a cisgender woman with a natural vagina and not a transgender woman with an artificial vagina?

But wait, I thought trans-people aren't talking about their biology. :roll: contradiction after contradiction after contradiction. It's contradictions all the way down. — Harry Hindu

What contradiction?

Is a trans man with a penis biologically male or biologically female?

If bathrooms are unisex then "cis-people" can use any bathrooms they want as well as any gender which would place trans-people in the same spaces with the same people that you claim they would be in danger. — Harry Hindu

Most of the abuse they receive is “Get out! You’re not allowed to use this bathroom you pervert!” (even though they’re not perverts and are allowed to use that bathroom), so unisex bathrooms would solve the problem entirely.

Then what are they actually saying? — Harry Hindu

That their gender is male.

What does it feel like to be a man or a woman? We all have feelings. Which ones are the woman and man feelings? It appears you are conflating certain feelings that have nothing to do with sex with sex, which would be sexist. — Harry Hindu

These are four different things:

1. Male sex
2. Male gender
3. Female sex
4. Female gender

Most people who have (1) also have (2), and is the reason that it’s called the “male” gender, and most people who have (3) also have (4), and is the reason that it’s called the “female” gender.

But some people have (1) and (4) and some people have (2) and (3).

So you would exclude most trans women from changing rooms where there is nudity?

It's a start, I suppose. — Malcolm Parry

And you would include some trans women (i.e. those who have had bottom surgery) and exclude some trans men (i.e. those who have had bottom surgery) from women's changing rooms where this is nudity?