Current Affairs Free Speech

[kenada_blue]

Because it eradicates the meaning of the word 'woman'. I think that's why you are confused I'm mentioning trans women, because the whole point is that the extremist trans lobby want trans women to be identified as women, full stop, no distinctions made.

It's quite simple - "women and trans men". Sorts it all out. But they don't want that as they want to deny 'trans' exists as far as I can tell.

The NHS letters are factual. They need to be factual. Women need to be invited for smear tests. Trans men are still women. That's what people who complain can't get their heads around, because they want to delete the word trans as an identifier and they want trans men to be men and trans women to be women when they complete the transition. The transition itself at that point magically disappears.

I think that is extremely regressive. Instead, celebrate the fact people are trans. That's why situations like 'awkward in the waiting room' occur, because trans people are taught that unless they're identified as a 'real' version of the sex they want to be, then they're lesser than. They're not - they aren't the same, they should celebrate not being the same.

Gegging in like...but I do agree with this.

Inclusion is acceptance. How changing terms and phrases somehow means inclusion, doesn't really change the perception.

And anyway...It's taken a number of thousands of years to now get to a point where everyone seems to hold a biology/English degree.

 

[Tubey]

I'm not nitpicking. You brought up biology as a means to defend a position about what defines "woman." When you look at the biology underlying sex determination it is not as clear cut and binary as you (or many others think). There are five ways that one can talk about biological sex and not all of them always line-up to produce a strict binary system of "only male" and "only female": 1) chromosomal sex (XX or XY zygote), 2) gonadal sex (internal differentiation of ovaries/testes, 3) hormonal sex (relative levels of testosterone/estrogen), 4) anatomical sex (regression/development of Wolffian/Mullerian ducts), 5) behavioral/brain sex (relative amounts hormones acting on brain development). For example, an individual could be XY and have high circulating testosterone, but look entirely female (external vulva, developed breasts) and identify as a woman. And no biology or twitter outrage is necessary to accord this person the right to identify as a woman.

So importantly to me, the biology doesn't matter in this issue about trans rights and womanhood. It's simply a matter of respect and recognition. Who cares if the definition of "woman" is redefined? You find people who want to do this "insane." I find your position to be histrionic. Do you get equally aggrieved when you hear the word "mother"? Drawing on a strict biological definition of "mother," it should only apply to women who have given birth to a child. But of course the reality (independent of biology) is that many women are "mothers" such as those who have legally adopted a child or even those who have spent time raising a child that wasn't their own. Words and rights/laws are always redefined to accommodate the reality of human diversity. What puzzles me is why people on social media get so twitterpated about this.

Right, so I wasn't wrong then. Because all you've done is listed societal definitions of gender instead of biological reality. All that counts is number one on your list - everything else is subsidiary. So the rest of it is subjective, whilst sex is objective.

Sex is binary. Even those with Klinefelters are by definition male. The Y chromosome defines that.

 

[kenada_blue]

I'm not nitpicking. You brought up biology as a means to defend a position about what defines "woman." When you look at the biology underlying sex determination it is not as clear cut and binary as you (or many others think). There are five ways that one can talk about biological sex and not all of them always line-up to produce a strict binary system of "only male" and "only female": 1) chromosomal sex (XX or XY zygote), 2) gonadal sex (internal differentiation of ovaries/testes, 3) hormonal sex (relative levels of testosterone/estrogen), 4) anatomical sex (regression/development of Wolffian/Mullerian ducts), 5) behavioral/brain sex (relative amounts hormones acting on brain development). For example, an individual could be XY and have high circulating testosterone, but look entirely female (external vulva, developed breasts) and identify as a woman. And no biology or twitter outrage is necessary to accord this person the right to identify as a woman.

So importantly to me, the biology doesn't matter in this issue about trans rights and womanhood. It's simply a matter of respect and recognition. Who cares if the definition of "woman" is redefined? You find people who want to do this "insane." I find your position to be histrionic. Do you get equally aggrieved when you hear the word "mother"? Drawing on a strict biological definition of "mother," it should only apply to women who have given birth to a child. But of course the reality (independent of biology) is that many women are "mothers" such as those who have legally adopted a child or even those who have spent time raising a child that wasn't their own. Words and rights/laws are always redefined to accommodate the reality of human diversity. What puzzles me is why people on social media get so twitterpated about this.

But isn't that his point that it's minorital and split catagorical? Then generally labelled male, female, or both from birth?

As for the definition of mother point... surely it has biological meaning as it's towards women?

 

[Tubey]

But isn't that his point that it's minorital and split catagorical? Then generally labelled male, female, or both from birth?

As for the definition of mother point... surely it has biological meaning as it's towards women?

A trans woman can't be a mother by definition. A trans man can.

It might sound harsh, but words matter.

What they can do is adopt the label 'mother' informally in terms of a societal construct - just like how if a trans person wasn't to go by whatever pronoun they want, for the sake of politeness you accept it. If they want to be called "mum", "woman" etc. in an informal societal way, so be it. Anyone can identify as anything they want to. But the underpinning principle of what a mother actually is remains.

If there's a Y chromosome, you're a male, and therefore a man. If there's not, you're a female, and therefore a woman. XXY, you're a man. XXX, you're a woman.

Just how it is. In terms of law, biological reality is importance as rights are underpinned by the certainty of it.

The only reason people get upset and try to deny biological reality is because there's a stigma/shame against trans people. That's the actual problem - instead of trying to be something they're not, why don't they be what they are? Trans men and trans women. Why delete the trans? I've never understood it - indeed, it's textbook transphobia in many ways.

 

[kenada_blue]

A trans woman can't be a mother by definition. A trans man can.

It might sound harsh, but words matter.

What they can do is adopt the label 'mother' informally in terms of a societal construct - just like how if a trans person wasn't to go by whatever pronoun they want, for the sake of politeness you accept it. If they want to be called "mum", "woman" etc. in an informal societal way, so be it. Anyone can identify as anything they want to. But the underpinning principle of what a mother actually is remains.

If there's a Y chromosome, you're a male, and therefore a man. If there's not, you're a female, and therefore a woman. XXY, you're a man. XXX, you're a woman.

Just how it is. In terms of law, biological reality is importance as rights are underpinned by the certainty of it.

The only reason people get upset and try to deny biological reality is because there's a stigma/shame against trans people. That's the actual problem - instead of trying to be something they're not, why don't they be what they are? Trans men and trans women. Why delete the trans? I've never understood it - indeed, it's textbook transphobia in many ways.

I do agree with you.

Personally not really bothered about changing of definitions as most people end up in knots trying to explain reasonings behind binary, non binary, sex, gender etc in context of "inclusion" as it ends up being quasi internet drivel coming across as academia.

To me it wouldn't really change people's perceptions as, like you say, they'll still be there because it's almost counter productive as there's still the stigma.

It's similar to gay rights and homophobia. It became societal norms over years of embracing what it is, not changing it to suit mainstreaming

 

[Blue 1]

Interesting article.

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[verreauxi]

Right, so I wasn't wrong then. Because all you've done is listed societal definitions of gender instead of biological reality. All that counts is number one on your list - everything else is subsidiary. So the rest of it is subjective, whilst sex is objective.

Sex is binary. Even those with Klinefelters are by definition male. The Y chromosome defines that.

At least you're sticking to script: Internet "logic bro" subjectively proclaims clinical biology to be erroneous. But anyways, back to reality: every single sentence in my first paragraph shows that you're wrong. And I'm not sure why you brought up Klinefelters to boot.

What is the most interesting issue about this pseudo-controversy is why thinks-they're-edgy white dudes place so much emphasis on semantics over respect for human dignity. Who are you (or me, for that matter) to decide what other people identify as, no matter their underlying biology?

 

[Tubey]

At least you're sticking to script: Internet "logic bro" subjectively proclaims clinical biology to be erroneous. But anyways, back to reality: every single sentence in my first paragraph shows that you're wrong. And I'm not sure why you brought up Klinefelters to boot.

What is the most interesting issue about this pseudo-controversy is why thinks-they're-edgy white dudes place so much emphasis on semantics over respect for human dignity. Who are you (or me, for that matter) to decide what other people identify as, no matter their underlying biology?

I've said people can identify as whatever they want; it doesn't mean they actually are that thing though.

That's not semantics.

 

[coollino]

At least you're sticking to script: Internet "logic bro" subjectively proclaims clinical biology to be erroneous. But anyways, back to reality: every single sentence in my first paragraph shows that you're wrong. And I'm not sure why you brought up Klinefelters to boot.

What is the most interesting issue about this pseudo-controversy is why thinks-they're-edgy white dudes place so much emphasis on semantics over respect for human dignity. Who are you (or me, for that matter) to decide what other people identify as, no matter their underlying biology?

Internet logic bro lol

 

[Tubey]

Interesting article.

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

www.scientificamerican.com

Pretty much all of that deals with variations of developmental defects. There will be and are anomalies, as I noted before with Klinefelters as an example. No human is born the same, they develop different.

But the fundamental underpinning remains XX/XY as biological fact. And as the article states, legal rights are underpinned by that fact across the world, because it is correct. It supercedes the rest.

 

[kenada_blue]

At least you're sticking to script: Internet "logic bro" subjectively proclaims clinical biology to be erroneous. But anyways, back to reality: every single sentence in my first paragraph shows that you're wrong. And I'm not sure why you brought up Klinefelters to boot.

What is the most interesting issue about this pseudo-controversy is why thinks-they're-edgy white dudes place so much emphasis on semantics over respect for human dignity. Who are you (or me, for that matter) to decide what other people identify as, no matter their underlying biology?

But aren't you referring to type by attacking the poster and stating theyre "wrong" for having an opposing opinion? Or even reverting to looking down on as you say "edgy white dudes" (as if that means ethnicity means invalid opinions) to justify your points?

Surely it should be a debate rather than stating who's wrong or right? Especially as you allude to people being "stuck in the past" as if these things have only been discovered in the past 5 years. These are decades old debates that no one really has a final say on...apart from the scientific community who study this for a job.

So debate and discuss rather than belittle. Which is always the problem today.

 

[verreauxi]

Pretty much all of that deals with variations of developmental defects. There will be and are anomalies, as I noted before with Klinefelters as an example. No human is born the same, they develop different.

But the fundamental underpinning remains XX/XY as biological fact. And as the article states, legal rights are underpinned by that fact across the world, because it is correct. It supercedes the rest.

Would the Tubey of 50 years ago would be arguing that strict heterosexuality "remains...as biological fact" and that "legal rights are underpinned by that fact across the world because it is correct. It supercedes the rest"? (The point of the article, by the way, was not to say that legal rights are underpinned by a strict binary view of sex, but that they are problematic because of this view).

Legal rights underpin heterosexuality in many countries, making it illegal to be gay. Do you agree with this? Is homosexuality an "anomaly" simply because it is less prevalent than heterosexuality? The issue you bring up is precisely why it's a problematic. There is a class of marginalized individuals who are discriminated against because of the strict binary-sex laws that exist. Why should a trans teacher lose their job? Why should a trans pilot lose their job? These decisions were upheld in courts because of a simplistic version of the law, rather than basic consideration of job performance.

 

[Tubey]

Would the Tubey of 50 years ago would be arguing that strict heterosexuality "remains...as biological fact" and that "legal rights are underpinned by that fact across the world because it is correct. It supercedes the rest"? (The point of the article, by the way, was not to say that legal rights are underpinned by a strict binary view of sex, but that they are problematic because of this view).

Legal rights underpin heterosexuality in many countries, making it illegal to be gay. Do you agree with this? Is homosexuality an "anomaly" simply because it is less prevalent than heterosexuality? The issue you bring up is precisely why it's a problematic. There is a class of marginalized individuals who are discriminated against because of the strict binary-sex laws that exist. Why should a trans teacher lose their job? Why should a trans pilot lose their job? These decisions were upheld in courts because of a simplistic version of the law, rather than basic consideration of job performance.

Well no, as heterosexuality isn't and never has been biological fact, you can go back to Ancient Greece and before to see object proof homosexuality was a thing.

Not remotely the same thing. XX/XY is fact, it's not like I'm claiming the earth is flat by saying that.

Your stance is a common one - essentially you find not hurting people's feelings as more important than the truth, which is why you keep bringing up societal issues as an argument for ignoring biology.

As for legality, I've said repeatedly that more protections for trans people should exist - but corrupting the meaning of male and female doesn't achieve that; it's just an attempt to pretend transitioning isn't a thing. It is. A trans teacher should be protected from employment issues by trans rights, not the rights of the sex they're identifying as, because they're not that sex.

 

[verreauxi]

But aren't you referring to type by attacking the poster and stating theyre "wrong" for having an opposing opinion? Or even reverting to looking down on as you say "edgy white dudes" (as if that means ethnicity means invalid opinions) to justify your points?

Surely it should be a debate rather than stating who's wrong or right? Especially as you allude to people being "stuck in the past" as if these things have only been discovered in the past 5 years. These are decades old debates that no one really has a final say on...apart from the scientific community who study this for a job.

So debate and discuss rather than belittle. Which is always the problem today.

They are wrong because sex isn't defined only by XX/XY, which I was careful to point out. It's not a matter of opinion.
As to edgy white dudes, they are always the loudest online presence going on about some issue that very often never affects them in a life-changing or meaningful way (see any twitter exchange involving Jordan Peterson).
I'm not sure what you mean about "stuck in the past"...I don't think I said this.
I am a member of the scientific community who studies genetics and teaches about this topic.

 

[coollino]

Well no, as heterosexuality isn't and never has been biological fact, you can go back to Ancient Greece and before to see object proof homosexuality was a thing.

Not remotely the same thing. XX/XY is fact, it's not like I'm claiming the earth is flat by saying that.

Your stance is a common one - essentially you find not hurting people's feelings as more important than the truth, which is why you keep bringing up societal issues as an argument for ignoring biology.

As for legality, I've said repeatedly that more protections for trans people should exist - but corrupting the meaning of male and female doesn't achieve that; it's just an attempt to pretend transitioning isn't a thing. It is. A trans teacher should be protected from employment issues by trans rights, not the rights of the sex they're identifying as, because they're not that sex.

If only everyone was as wise as you in every subject ever.

Your prose is exactly the same on every subject. It's incredible, in a way.