I do not claim they are the same thing. I just do not see how that matters. — Tobias

If "X is good" is synonymous with "we ought do X" and if "we ought do X" is not synonymous with "I ought do X" then "X is good" is not synonymous with "I ought do X".

So we're missing a step that gets us from "X is good" to "I ought do X". That's why it matters.

No, of course not, but if you state that 'we should do X', it does not make sense to say 'we', but not 'I'. I would be puzzled if you would say "We are going on holiday, but I am not". — Tobias

You made the claim “we ought end world poverty”, not me. Did you mean to include me in that claim?

And this is where the claim "ought implies can" comes into play. If "we ought do X" implies "I ought do X" and if "I ought do X" implies "I can do X" then "we ought do X" implies "I can do X", and so "we ought end world poverty" implies "I can end world poverty". Therefore, if "I can end world poverty" is false then "we ought end world poverty" is false.

I think we need to disambiguate the claim "we ought do X". Consider these two claims:

1. Each person ought X
2. Humanity ought X

The phrase "we ought X" could mean either (1) or (2), but (1) and (2) do not prima facie mean the same thing, e.g. "humanity weighs 390 million tons" does not mean "each person weighs 390 million tons".

So even if "I ought X" follows from (1) it does not prima facie follow from (2). If it doesn't follow, and if "we ought X" only means (2), then "I ought X" does not follow from "we ought X".

Yes exactly and that is precisely what I told the OP and Amadeus. The mistake in the OP is that it asks for a justification for this vacuity, but it cannot be given because it is a truism. — Tobias

But a previous comment of yours hints at "I ought to do good" not being a vacuous truism:

"So if we ought to do good...".

The conditional here is telling. You don't seem to be saying "So if we ought to do that which we ought to do".

I do not see the distinction. — Tobias

Well, "I" and "we" mean different things, so "I ought end world poverty" is not synonymous with "we ought end world poverty". That’s the (semantic) distinction.

It is synonymous with ''X' should be done', I guess. — Tobias

But does "X should be done" logically entail "I ought do X"?

In your example, you are part of the 'we' right? — Tobias

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's certainly not the case that the pronoun "we" necessarily includes every human, else a phrase like "we're going on holiday" would mean "every human is going on holiday".

So you need to clarify what you mean when you say "we ought end world poverty". Do you mean "every human ought end world poverty"?

So if we ought to do good, than I ought to contribute to that doing of good. Since good is totally unspecified, we can just as well say" I ought to do good". — Tobias

This seems to equivocate. You've been claiming that "good" is in some sense synonymous with "ought", in which case the claim "I ought do good" is synonymous with the claim "I ought do that which I ought do", which is admittedly a truism but also vacuous.

I think that we want "I ought do good" to mean more than just "I ought do that which I ought do", in which case we want "good" to not be synonymous with "ought", even if the one does entail the other.

But how can we get "good" and "ought" to each entail the other without being synonymous?

We ought to end world poverty, no, even though it is impossible to do so for anyone in particular. — Tobias

So it's not that I ought to end world poverty, only that we ought to end world poverty. That's a pertinent distinction.

Perhaps, then, "X is good" is not synonymous with "I ought do X" but is synonymous with "we ought do X"?

But we're still missing something from which to derive a personal obligation. How do we get from "we ought do X" to "I ought do X"? The example of ending world poverty perhaps shows that the former does not logically entail the latter.

And there are people who have neither an XX nor an XY karotype, therefore according to your own definitions there are people who are neither biologically male nor biologically female.

So “biological male” means “has an XY karotype” and “biological female” means “has an XX karotype”?

In the other cases, we don't just give up and say we don't know which biological sex they are. We might have a different set of predictions due to a certain condition, but it's still a male or female that has the condition — frank

Then what does “biological sex” refer to? You seem to be saying that even though the vast majority of biological men have an XY karotype and that even though the vast majority of people with an XY karotype are biological men, there are exceptions.

If there are exceptions then “is biologically male” doesn’t mean “has an XY karotype”.

So what does “is biologically male” mean?

I don't understand why you're asking that. — frank

Because AmadeusD is claiming that every human is either biologically male or biologically female, and so that no human is intersex.

If his claim is true then it's not clear to me what counts as being biologically male and being biologically female, given the existence of individuals with XX male syndrome, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, ovotesticular syndrome, gonadal dysgenesis, etc.

As an example, if to be biologically male is to have a penis and to be biologically female is to have a vagina, and if everyone is either biologically male or biologically female, then everyone has either a penis or a vagina. And yet people with ambiguous genitalia exist.

Or, if to be biologically male is to have an XY karotype and to be biologically female is to have an XX karotype, and if everyone is either biologically male or biologically female, then everyone has either an XY karotype or an XX karotype. And yet people with different karotypes exist.

So you tell me; what does "biological sex" refer to? Does it refer to karotype? Does it refer to phenotype? Does it refer to something else? Is biological sex a strict dichotomy such that every human must be either one sex or the other?

It means the person was born male. — frank

Which means what?

It's easy enough to pin it down. — frank

Then what does it mean?

We can, and do, talk about intersex individuals having both a female phenotype and a male karotype, or having both a male phenotype and a female karotype, therefore the terms "male" and "female" cannot mean what you claim they mean, else such biologies would be logical contradictions.

As an example, someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (NSFW) has a female phenotype despite having an active SRY gene.

Therefore the adjective "female" cannot mean "doesn't have an active SRY gene".

Your account is incompatible with how the English language is actually used.

we have a number of factual examples of trans 'women' raping or assaulting women in female prisons. — Jeremy Murray

And there are factual examples of trans women being raped or sexually assaulted in men's prisons.

In fact, according to this, "the total number of transgender victims far exceeds the number who were suspected of carrying out sex attacks, with only one such case in 2019."

Both the safety of cisgender women and the safety of transgender women (and cisgender men and transgender men) matter. You (and at least one other in this discussion) seem to only care about the safety of cisgender women.

SRY determines maleness. — AmadeusD

What's maleness?

Neither of these is true. — AmadeusD

You missed the preceding sentence:

Is a biological male any human with testes and a biological female any human with ovaries?

If the answer to this question is "yes" then someone with both testes and ovaries (i.e with ovotesticular disorder) is both biologically male and biologically female and someone with neither testes nor ovaries (i.e. with gonadal dysgenesis) is neither biologically male nor biologically female.

But if the answer to this question is "no" then what is the connection between an active SRY gene and being biologically male?

Passing isn't a criterion for me, though, so unsure why I'm asked to defend it. — AmadeusD

You were responding to my question to BitconnectCarlos, who claims that it is acceptable for a trans woman who passes as a biological woman to use women's bathrooms. My question to him is relevant to his position. If you disagree with his position then my question isn't relevant, so I'm not sure why you answered it.

An active one, yes. That seems to be the deduction of biology. — AmadeusD

The deduction of biology is that an active SRY gene is responsible for the development of testes. What does that have to do with being biologically male? Is a biological male any human with testes and a biological female any human with ovaries? Then someone with ovotesticular disorder or is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female.

SRY. — AmadeusD

Are you saying that a biological male is anyone with an SRY gene and a biological female is anyone without an SRY gene?

The person who can tell that they aren't. — AmadeusD

I believe that Jane passes as a woman. John believes that Jane doesn't pass as a woman.

Does Jane pass as a woman? Ought Jane be allowed to use the women's bathroom?

If a man decides to start using women's spaces, is anyone even allowed to confront him in your view? What is the proper response if he claims to be trans but just hasn't started transitioning?

It can be difficult. Ambiguity is inherent to gender transition; it is a process, not an immediate switch from A to B. — BitconnectCarlos

Why does appearance matter? If the concern is the safety and well being of cisgender women, and if you say that trans women who pass as biological women ought use women's bathrooms, then there's the implicit claim that trans women who pass as biological women are less likely to sexually assault cisgender women in women's bathrooms than trans women who don't pass as biological women. Is there any basis behind such a claim?

But if you're not making such a claim then what's the reasoning in only allowing trans women who pass as biological women to use the women's bathroom? Is it just that cisgender women would be uncomfortable with transgender women who don't pass as biological women using the women's bathroom? I don't think that's a sufficiently good reason. There are likely plenty of homophobic women who are uncomfortable around lesbians and racist white men who are uncomfortable around black men, but that's not a sufficiently good reason to restrict bathrooms by race or sexuality.

Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. — BitconnectCarlos

Everyone should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration, and one such way is to not lash out when someone you don't want using your bathroom is taking a piss. Just wash your hands and leave.

I used to frequent a nightclub where all the toilets were unisex. It's really not a big deal.

No. Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. A very passable trans woman (e.g., Blaire White) belongs in a women's restroom even with male genitalia. — BitconnectCarlos

Who gets to decide whether or not someone is passing? Is the masculine-looking cisgender woman who is often mistaken for a man required to use the men's bathroom, despite both her biological sex and gender identity being female?

Sure, and I wouldn't support such a law. However, I don't believe that male genitalia belongs in women's locker rooms under any circumstances.

I have heard of incidents where FtMs enter women's locker rooms, and it leads to chaos. — BitconnectCarlos

So your suggestion is that bathrooms should be divided by "has a penis" (including trans men with an artificial penis) and "doesn't have a penis" (including trans women who have had their penis removed)?

Trans men get erased from conversations like these because men tend not to care if trans men use their spaces. Nobody will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a men's room. — BitconnectCarlos

But if the law requires that one's biological sex determines which bathroom one can use then plenty of women will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a women's bathroom.

So what bathroom should Leo Macallan use?

No, they are perfectly synonymous. — Tobias

Which sentences are synonymous? Surely not "X is good" and "I ought do X" because ought implies can but "X is good" does not seem to imply "I can do X".

I’m arguing that men should not be allowed access to women’s spaces. — Malcolm Parry

By this you mean "biological men should not be allowed access to biological women's spaces"?

But the question is: should prisons be divided into one space for biological men and one space for biological women?

This is why I suggested before to not use the term's "men's prison" and "women's prison". There is only Prison A and Prison B.

Two possible scenarios are:

1. Prison A is only for people who are biologically male and Prison B is only for people who are biologically female
2. Prison A is only for cisgender and transgender men and Prison B is only for cisgender and transgender women

In scenario 2 there is no such thing as a "biological women's space" (with respect to prison).

So we must ask ourselves; which of scenarios 1 and 2 is preferable? What factors must we take into account to determine this?

There is a reason why the sexes have separate prisons. What about this don’t you understand? — Malcolm Parry

We want to protect biological women from biological men.

But we should also want to protect transgender women from cisgender men.

So how do we balance these two concerns? We could treat cisgender and transgender women as equals, and so try to reduce the total amount of sexual violence amongst these two vulnerable groups.

Again why should women have to exposed to male violence for men to be protected from male violence? — Malcolm Parry

Why should transgender women have to be exposed to cisgender male violence for cisgender women to be protected from transgender female violence?

If you want to claim that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of every other group, then just say it.

You are fixated on a tiny tiny minority of people that have had quirks in their development. These people are not a separate sex or both sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Well yes, they are. That's why they are classified as biologically intersex rather than biologically male or biologically female.

There is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify someone as biologically male and no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify someone as biologically female such that every human satisfies either one of these sets or the other (and not both).

I’m not sure what this brings to the debate. For the 99.98% of the results are 100% accurate. — Malcolm Parry

The remaining 0.02% is 1,600,000 people. They exist, and any laws we pass that dictate which bathrooms or toilets or prisons people can use must account for them, else what is to be done if they want to use a public toilet, play football, or are convicted of a serious crime?

Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men? — Malcolm Parry

That's a leading question.

If our primary concern is in reducing the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population then we must determine which of these scenarios reduces the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population:

1. Trans women in women's prisons and trans men in men's prisons
2. Trans women in men's prisons and trans men in men's prisons
3. Trans women in women's prisons and trans men in women's prisons
4. Trans women in men's prisons and trans men in women's prisons

It may be that more trans women would be the victims of sexual violence in men's prisons than would be the perpetrators of sexual violence in women's prisons, in which case the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population is reduced by placing trans women in women's prisons.

Whereas you seem to be arguing that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of transgender women, such that it's better for 10 transgender women to be the victims of sexual violence at the hands of a cisgender man than for 1 cisgender woman to the be the victim of sexual violence at the hands of a transgender woman? That would be incredibly sexist/transphobic.

Your reasoning seems to depend heavily on the empirical question of how dangerous a male or else a trans woman is within a women's prison. — Leontiskos

And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison.

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech. — Harry Hindu

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

We ought be allowed to question authority and criticise what others say, but we ought not be allowed to defame (slander/libel), reveal classified information, or encourage others to commit certain (esp. violent) criminal acts, etc.

A well-functioning society depends on some restrictions on what one can and cannot say. Free speech absolutism (like many libertarian ideals, e.g. "no taxes!") is a naive fantasy that any reasonable person should understand is unworkable (and unethical, if consequentialism is correct).

Uttering the phrase isn’t the only thing you’ve done. — NOS4A2

What else have I done?

Admittedly “abuse of power” doesn’t outline any real crime. I guess it's just a political term of art. That’s why I believe the only “punishment” for that specific act ought to be decided at the ballot box. — NOS4A2

Then let's not consider some elected official. Ought the employee who falsely accuses (and knowingly so) his colleague of theft be fired? Ought the intelligence agent who verbally reveals classified national security information to a stranger in the pub be arrested?

@NOS4A2

I deleted my comment from a few seconds ago because I think I misinterpreted you.

Probably unisex toilets, sports teams divided by biological sex, and prisons divided by gender identity.

Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? — Harry Hindu

Yes. According to this, "infertility affects many – but not all – intersex people." Each person's sex gametes (sperm or egg) contain a complete set of that person's genes, and so can be passed on to the child.

Are there intersex genes, or male and female genes that sometimes get muddled in process of sex - of merging two different sets of genes together? — Harry Hindu

There are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes, with particular combinations being responsible for particular phenotypes (e.g. XX typically responsible for the development of breasts and a vagina, and XY typically responsible for the development of a penis), but this relationship is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but develop breasts and a vagina), and there are more combinations than just XX and XY.

Asking what counts as a "male gene" or a "female gene" strikes me as a confused question. The words "male" and "female" had a meaning well before we understood anything about genes. I don't think that when we referred to someone as being male we were unknowingly referring to them as having a particular sequence of DNA.

All we can say is that in almost all cases where we describe someone using the adjective "male", that person has XY chromosomes and that in almost all cases where we describe someone using the adjective "female", that person has XX chromosomes. But there are plenty of people who defy this "rule", whether that be because they have a different set of chromosomes or because they have an ambiguous phenotype or because their phenotype does not correspond to the "typical" phenotype of people with their set of chromosomes.

Not that any of this has any bearing on the political discussion on whether or not and how we should divide bathrooms and sports teams and prisons. The etymology of English vocabulary is irrelevant.

If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies? — Harry Hindu

No.

Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369 — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there, or if you've misunderstood my argument here.

I accept that "99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes — male and female" as you say, but also that 0.1% of people fall outside these classes, and so are classified as neither male nor female but as intersex.

Malcolm Perry seems to be arguing that there's no such thing as being intersex; that every human is either male or female, even if it's difficult for us to determine which. And that's simply not the case. Human biology is complex, and the English nouns "male" and "female" do not fully capture this complexity.

Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position. — NOS4A2

How have I abused my position? You obeyed, so I didn't punish you, and I might not have even threatened to punish you for disobeying. The only thing I've done is uttered the phrase "throw Trump in prison". You may (correctly or incorrectly) believe that you would be punished for disobeying, but I haven't done or said anything to that effect.

So this doesn't work unless you want to say that, by virtue of my position, the very utterance "throw Trump in prison" is the abuse of power and ought be punished, in which case you accept the principle that some speech acts ought be restricted, even if the restriction depends both on content and the relative "positions" of the speaker and the audience (whereas others might think that content alone is sufficient).

You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word. — Harry Hindu

Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my involvement in the (conspiray to) murder?

Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife. — NOS4A2

There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?

The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders. — NOS4A2

You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.

Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology?

It is only the tiny tiny minority of people you appear to be fixated on that may need more scientific basis to determine their sex. — Malcolm Parry

There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for.

The reality is that the English words "male" and "female" developed to name the two main phenotypes that typically distinguish humans, with other words like "hermaphrodite" used to name those with a phenotype that differs from the typical two. We later discovered that these two phenotypes are typically caused by two main sets of chromosomes (XY and XX), but also that there are more than these two sets of chromosomes, and that the relationship between sex chromosomes and phenotype is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but a phenotype that we would typically name "female").

It seems you are confusing actions with speech. — Harry Hindu

How do you distinguish between action and speech in the cases mentioned?

Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General.

I'm not physically placing a gun in John Smith's hand and pulling the trigger; I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him.

Molecular biology in the cases that are not immediately apparent. — Malcolm Parry

What molecules determine someone to be either a man or a woman?

But also your use of "immediately apparent" suggests that you think that biological sex is determined by outward appearance, and so not a concern of molecular biology at all, and brings back into question those who have undergone (complete) sex reassignment surgery.

You don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position.

It has worked quite well until about a decade ago. Not sure why it has become so complicated. — Malcolm Parry

And yet in your answer to my question above you didn't say "anyone can use bathroom A and anyone can use bathroom B".

So again you don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position.

It is extremely simple. If someone is indistinguishable then no one will know or care. The law does not need to get involved. Just like they don't need to get involved when very masculine looking women go to the loo.

If Buck Angel is a woman then Buck Angel can go to the female facilities. — Malcolm Parry

So the law ought allow for anyone to use any bathroom?

I recognise that intersex people have ambiguous genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosones etc. But they aren't neither or both sexes. — Malcolm Parry

So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female?

Biology — Malcolm Parry

What about biology determines if someone is male or female? You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition.

I would say only natural but if someone has surgery and looks like a woman, who would know otherwise? — Malcolm Parry

That’s part of why the answer to these questions isn’t so simple. If a transgender man is outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender man and a transgender woman outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender woman then how is something like bathroom usage to be legislated and policed?

If we legislate to say that sex chromosomes determine which bathroom someone can use (ignoring for the moment the case of being intersex) then someone like Buck Angel (as he has already been mentioned) is going to face constant abuse and arrest for using the “women’s” bathroom because by outward appearance he looks like the typical biological man.