Ah - your diversion question. I said I did not want to get into a blatant diversionary question about what flavour of epistemology I was talking about. There is no need to. Keep your undergraduate philosophy nonsense to yourself. The distinction I made was clear about conflation of questions.
What dumb question of yours have I missed?
Feel free to. You have nothing serious to add here.
Trans people can be whoever they want to be. But they cannot usurp women's rights and protections. Or coerce kids into taking life altering drugs. They are free to believe whatever they want to about themselves. But society need not believe the same things too.
Because these abusive men want access to women's protected spaces , sports and rights. They do it to get off.
They are trying to fool people they are not male and they are female. All the "gender" talk is a smokescreen for weak minds. 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?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
Gibberish.
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.
Now for keeping men out of women's spaces, there are false negatives (mistaking a man for a woman) and false positives (mistaking a woman for a man). Starting with false negatives, if a man attempts to be abusive and enter a women's protected space, how often women not recognise him as a man?
So, you accept almost everyone really is male or female objectively? You just worry that we might mistakes in having a bathroom policy.
So the question to you is to justify and start quantifying your claim. If you have good info about a person (and access to any medical report test you might desire) what percentage of people do you claim *cannot* be classified as male or female?
We have said what a male or female is: it is a phenotype with a reproductive role around a gamete type. We know we can recognise these sexes trivially (c. 98% though face alone) and we can do so objectively (no surprises who gets pregnant). This is all trivial. Can you accept this as fact?
Let's imagine there is indeed an arbitrary judgement call required to classify some people. What percentage of people do you think this applies to? Can you start putting some meat on your skeleton with claims that can be tested against the literature?
Complete handwaving bullshit. I think what you are saying - what it boils down to - is that there are people who are not male or female. Woudl that be correct?
Maybe you need to understand the univariate fallacy before we go on. www.lesswrong.com/posts/cu7YY7...
I have explained all in detail. You do not like the answers as it does not fit into your batshit gender ideology.
But as for medical intervention, we are looking for evidence of which of the two sex development pathways an individual has undergone.
For example, the majority of people recognise the left face as male and the right face as female. But ask them to explain how they know this and they will stumble. Our brains are deeply wired to recognise the sex of a person.
Your argument appears to be because we might struggle to say *how* we recognise a person as female we must conclude we cannot. But as I have shown you, we can recognise who is male and female very reliably so the "how" is rather redundant.
This is just in your imagination. Women are not attacked for having PCOS or being on the fringes of female traits, like being tall, or a more masculine face.
But understanding the condition of 5-ARD means we can say the baby is male as he is XY and has an active SRY and undergoes male development, and masculinisation through testosterone from his testes, but with a retardation of growth of the penis until puberty.
We recognise male and female bodies by which of the two development pathways they have undergone. Example: a male baby with 5-ARD may have ambiguous genitals. And may be mistaken fir a girl.
Indeed. Drug induced gynaecomastia is very common and cross-dressers are a group that *intend* to induce gynaecomastia rather than it being a side effect, such as in body building. gpnotebook.com/en-GB/pages/...
I still see no substantive responses - just attempts to derail.
It was an attempt to derail. Not going down that path.
And we can say that we can classify almost all people trivially with a sex - and a tiny fraction of others perhaps with a little medical investigation. You have come up with no convincing and rational argument against this.
There is no requirement for there to be edge cases or thinsg to be neat - especially when severe development issues are involved. What we can say is that a sex is a strict category based on a reproductive role around a gamete type. That is a sex by definition.
None of these errors requires us to abandon the sex binary - two reproductive roles based on a gamete type. This is the fact you so much wish to deny so that men who say they are women can transgress into women's spaces.
Younger people who have not matured are less dimorphic and may introduce a little error. Older people may lose some body shape etc. And some people try to disguise their sex with varying degree of effort - including surgery. Another tiny percentage of error.
The reasons we get a few wrong can be due to several factors: Secondary sex characteristics do overlap - not much, but enough to introduce a percentage point of errors or so. That does not mean such people are not male or female, but atypical in body characteristics.
We have distinct sex organs for each role. But as moderately dimorphic mammals we do nto have to observe directly those sex organs as we can take in the myriad of clues from our body shapes, gait, voice, hair, facial structure and so on. And rcognise sex in adults in the high 90's%.
What utter nonsense on stilts. The central fact you wish to deny is that humans are a sexually reproducing species with two sexes: male and female. Those sex roles are distinct, objective and observable which is why your mum and dad were not surprised which one of them got pregnant.
When you point them out I will learn.
They are going after the Bigger Breast demographic now. Men up lamp-posts mainly.
Why does it matter how we know when it is obvious we can? We pick up myriads of cues about people's sex - any combination of which can be a give away. It is why people with trans identities are rarely successful in fooling people about their sex. It is a hard thing to do.
YEs. We went over a number of papers that show how we are very good at recognising sex **just from facial features** and without any other cues. They wriggled and squirmed at thee professional level over this.
These are facts you will struggle to explain away with your batshit gender ideology.
There are two facts that come out of my questions 1) We can say with very high accuracy who is male and who is female just by looking at them. Our "guess" almost always tallies with what they report. 2) Our recognition of sex can result in hard objective end-points to show we are correct: pregnancy
The point was both questioned undermined your premise that we cannot know objectively with high accuracy who is male and who is female. How we do this is a different question of course. But once you have to admit we can tell your ideology is busted.
And of course I pointed out that when your mother and father had you it was no surprise to either of them which one became pregnant. Another fact you struggled with for days. Telling who is male and female is trivial.
And I asked you how often you think we would get it wrong from a random 100 people. And you spend a couple of days refusing to answer. You did this because your question becomes rather obsolete when you admit we can tell males from females trivially.
Greens. Cranks from top to bottom now. The reformers have lost to a guy who thinks he can make breasts get bigger through the power of his mind. If you lose to that you have to conclude you were in the wrong party.
Only in your mind Michael. You still have failed to address so many questions as they threaten your worldview.
For example 1) We define each sex in relation to a gamete type (male/female - sperm/eggs) 2) We recognise the sexes of individuals through that species dimorphic characteristics. No one pretends they do not know the sex of each individual here.
This person is an idiot who quickly shows she does not understand the difference between the ontology of sex and its epistemology, e.g. 1) How do we define what a sex is? (ontology) 2) How do we recognise the sex of an individual organism? (epistemology) These are two different things.
Can you explain why every study in biology that needs to collect data about the sex of animals (say in populations) always collects sex as a categorical variable of male and female?
Male is the sex associated with reproductive roles around small gametes: sperm. Feale is the sex associated with reproductive roles around large gametes: ova. What other sexes are there?
Indeed. A lesson all those trying to destroy JK Rowling should learn.
Indeed. We only have freedom if we can say that we believe a transwoman is actually a man without fear of retribution and social censorship.
If I am wrong highlight anywhere that says a sex can change.
But as we have seen over the past fee months is that this law is rather redundant now as the law will still treat you as your real sex and not the sex you are futilely trying to become.
What is funny is that it does not recognise a person can change sex - just that some people propose to undergo a process to "reassign their sex". The law is silent on the matter if this can be successful. Just the attempt is required. A classic British compromise.
No law in the UK does that. You can get a bit of paper to say that the law will deem you to be the sex you are not - but that is a different law, and rather redundant now as it does not really apply in any meaningful legal situations.
You have been already!
Not in the biological sense, not in the legal sense, or in the rational sense - no. Only in the mind of a stark raving mad ideology.
How are these men being discriminated against when they claim to be women?
And so what rights do you think I am opposed to?
Correct. As they are for women and not men. Men do not have the right to use women's protected spaces. That applies to all men - so no discrimination here.
I support the Equality Act 2010 which is the foundation of trans rights in the UK. As any law, it might be improved, but it gets a fair sense of balance. What rights do you think I am opposed to?
The DSM is under constant revisions it is a provisional document. It is not a holy book. I have areas of disagreement as do many people. That does not mean I disagree with it all. If you disagree with any of it, then say what and why.
No. They have the same rights as everyone else in the UK ( I can't speak for other countries). The UK has robust equal rights laws for them. What right do you think I am denying them?
I merely point out that these paraphilias and fetishes exist. The details we may disagree on. I want to know how you keep the fetishists, transvestites out but allow transwomen in. How do you tell the difference?
How very American of you.
I have less strong views here as women do not present the same risk to men as men do to women.
Because it is "affirming" for them. Do look up autogynephilia which is an end-point here.
Yes. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
What do you mean by "the reverse?"
Some of us are interested in reducing the risks though. How about you? Do you want to reduce risks?
Well I would suggest all transvestites do it for sexual reasons. It is a fetish. I do not have data, bit come on - do you doubt this? Some transvestites are severely disordered and probably dangerous.
What are we trying to protect them from? I am in the UK and we were one of the first countries to provide employment protections and other equality rights. You cannot discriminate against a man with a "gender reassignment" compared to another man without such a characteristic.
Transvestic paraphilias. www.msdmanuals.com/home/mental-...
Indeed. But not at the expense of women and girls. Dismantling the protections for women is regressive and sexist. The trans movement needs to get a grip and change tack if they are not to be completely sidelined.
I exactly just did.
Indeed. Like all men should not be in there. Especially ones with cross-dressing fetishes and paraphilias.
Paraphilias cluster. Someone who cross-dresses may also be a voyeur or exhibitionist. Or worse. And in all of this you show zero empathy for women and girl's dignity and privacy. That is very telling. You do not even acknowledge the problem.
DO you not care about safeguarding for women and girls from abusive men?
Abusibve men are far more common than abusive women. Nearly all sex crime is perpetrated by males and their victims are most commonly by far females. How do you stop these fetishists out and let your saintly "transwomen" in?
Well I am sure you want to let the good ones in. And I am sure you want to keep the abusers out. How do you do it?
You are flummoxed by this question aren't you? But this is not a hypothetical. Since you allow in some men (the transgender ones) how can you stop abusive men going in?
You are avoiding the question. You do want to keep abusive cross-dressing and fetishistic men out I hope? How do you tell the difference between them and blameless "transwomen"?
Well abusive men represent a disproportionate threat. And you are trying to avoid answering. So how do you tell the difference?
How do I tell the difference though. They both want to shower with the girls in the sports club. Do you let them both in?
A male says he is a "transwoman" and wants to use the same showers & changing rooms at the swimming club as my teenage daughter. How do I tell the difference between the genuine "transwoman" who only wants to shower with the girls for wholesome reasons and the abusive fetishist in women's clothes?
Well if you want to let "genuine transwomen" into women's protected spaces, then I am sure you will wan to keep the fetishists out? No?
What is the difference between the two objectively?
How do you tell the difference between a male fetishistic cross-dresser and a transgender male?
Are you too saying that fetishistic cross-dressers do nto exist? Or if they do, do not adopt the identity of "transgender"?
I just gave an example - prisoners who put on a wig, claim to be transgender, and hope to get into a women's prison. A good example: an MP who was caught at a fetish party after smashing up his car so claimed he was "transgender" too. But keeping he/him pronouns. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wale...
Well I would never use "only". The prisoners who pretend to be women to get into women's prisons probably are not fetishists. Just liars. For example. But adult men who "come out" to their wives and work colleagues are almost always fetishists. See Caitlyn Jenner's statements on his experiences
You said... bsky.app/profile/theb...
You claimed it was some sort of obsolete fringe term - yet here it is in the up to date literature. It is a topic that is vigorously contested - by autogynephiles - as admitting its existence punctures their fantasy and orgasm. So it is resisted at all costs.
www.researchgate.net/publication/...
But some brave souls still perist in research despite the appalling behaviour of activists. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39843833/