You are mistkaing the definition of a sex for how we recognise a sex. Once again. A continuous error. Your complaint is how we do not have a good way of recognising sex to enforce a sex-based bathroom policy. Please be consistent.
You are mistkaing the definition of a sex for how we recognise a sex. Once again. A continuous error. Your complaint is how we do not have a good way of recognising sex to enforce a sex-based bathroom policy. Please be consistent.
No, that’s just an example to demonstrate why this question matters. It’s not about recognition. It’s about definition. Stick with it.
We have defined what a sex and you have agreed there are only two. Yoru quibbling is always abotu recognising sexes. I am fearing you know you are losing so are blustering now and deliberately not being clear.
Show me we can trust you as an honest debater here. Starting with false negatives, if a man attempts to be abusive and enter a women's protected space, how often will women not recognise him as a man? What do you think?
It’s not about recognition. It’s about defining what is there to be recognized. You’ve claimed that there are criteria that make each individual person discretely male or female. You can’t fulfill that with a fuzzy phenotype that 98% of people might agree with each other about. That’s not a binary.
We have been over this - there are two reproductive roles. That is what we are recognising. I am slowly and reluctantly coming to the unfortunate conclusion that you may only have the brains of a bag of gravel.
You keep conflating sex at the level of the human species and sex at the level of the individual. Yes, there are two human sexes. But your claim was that every individual human can be assigned to one of them on a discrete biological basis. That is what you were asked to substantiate.
I have never claimed everyone *must* be classified as male or female. That is an open question. My position is that it is likely everyone can be classified as male or female. My challenge to you was to show a person who was not male or female.
Right, but that question only makes sense under the premise that you are (or were? Are no longer?) arguing for. My position is that people are what they are. Yes, most people more or less align with a consensus definition that works in a social or medical context as needed. I have no need /
to go beyond that in search of some essential state of being. So if someone identifies themselves to me as intersex, under one of any number of clinical diagnoses, then that’s just… what they are. You may feel some need to assess that each person is more proximate to one pole or the other. I don’t.
It feels to me you want to play no critical thinking or safeguarding to what people say they are. You just accept any old nonsense that someone might say about themselves. That makes you a danger.
A million biologists point at a person and say “you are male,” and the person says “no, I’m not.” What says that they’re wrong and the biologists are right? If it’s “because your characteristics correlate more strongly with people who make small gametes,” that’s fine. It’s just not what you claimed.
What says they are wrong is if they are actually male and have a male phenotype. Some men pretend to be female for example as this gets them off. We do nto have to believe what these men say. Do we? If you dad said he was female you would know he was a liar.
I don’t understand how you can have argued online with and about trans people for months and still be unclear on the difference between sex and gender. Nobody claims that their body is not what it is. That’s not what any of this means.
I have not mentioned gender. I have no idea what you mean by it. It is used in so many different ways as to be essentially useless in any serious discussion. 1. Can you say what a gender actual is? 2. Can you give an example of a gender? 3. Can you define yoru chosen example gender?
My point is that a trans woman is not “pretending to be female.” They understand better than any of us the reality of the body they inhabit. You’re not being asked to believe or disbelieve anything about it. (On the contrary, they generally would rather you didn’t think about it at all.)