Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

And another

 

[icowden]

And another

View attachment 3433

That one doesn't work. Linehan specifically says "seat", the definition of which is:-
"a thing made or used for sitting on, such as a chair or stool."

You can breed a horse but you can't make one, and if you did, it's not specifically for sitting on.

The first one posted is just poor work. A definition of a biological woman easy.

• Biological Woman: A human being with the necessary internal organs for creating and growing another human being - or if you prefer - someone with XX chromosomes.
• Biological Man: someone without those items but who has testes - or someone with XY chromosomes.
• Intersex: Someone who may have both ovaries and testes and who has chromosomal anomaly such that they are neither XX nor XY but either a mixture of both or with additional chromosomes (XXY etc).

 

[multitool]

Look, it's OK. It wasnt really meant for you.

It was meant for those with a sense of humour.

 

[winjim]

That one doesn't work. Linehan specifically says "seat", the definition of which is:-
"a thing made or used for sitting on, such as a chair or stool."

You can breed a horse but you can't make one, and if you did, it's not specifically for sitting on.

The first one posted is just poor work. A definition of a biological woman easy.

• Biological Woman: A human being with the necessary internal organs for creating and growing another human being - or if you prefer - someone with XX chromosomes.
• Biological Man: someone without those items but who has testes - or someone with XY chromosomes.
• Intersex: Someone who may have both ovaries and testes and who has chromosomal anomaly such that they are neither XX nor XY but either a mixture of both or with additional chromosomes (XXY etc).

Androgen insensitivity.
5-alpha reductase deficiency.
CAH.

 

[winjim]

Also if we're using dictionary 'definitions' we tried looking up the definition of 'woman' but people started screaming that the dictionary had it wrong.

There are always going to be exceptions and your definitions are going to have to become larger and more convoluted to accommodate them.

I've largely avoided mentioning DSDs in this thread because including them is largely not necessary to the ideas I'm trying to explore around gender, although im some ways they epitomise them. I know they're brought out as a bit of a gotcha, and it also seems to me as I've mentioned upthread that they're pushed to one side as a bit of an afterthought, depending on what argument one is trying to advance. However, if we're going to try to make supposedly simple definitions which are inclusive of everybody then we need to consider them.

To expand on my above post, which I just jotted down last night when tired, these are differences of sexual development, or 'intersex' conditions which are not chromosomal but to do with steroid hormone biosynthesis and utilisation. Individuals with these conditions are chromosomally 'normal' ie 46XX or 47XY so they may have a sexual phenotype which doesn't correspond to their karyotype yet don't fit neatly into any of the definitions given above.

 

[winjim]

Again, what is sex? Is it chromosomal? Is it endocrine? Is it a bit of both? Is it a bit fuzzy at times?

 

[Unkraut]

Again, what is sex? Is it chromosomal? Is it endocrine? Is it a bit of both? Is it a bit fuzzy at times?

Why after a couple of centuries of supposed Enlightenment are we even asking questions like this?

Previous generations up to about 15 years ago had no problems with knowing what words like man woman father mother son daughter actually meant.

It may be post industrial revolution gender roles became over prescribed into a 'he goes out to work she stays at home to look after the kids' binary, but it seems to me an overreaction to this has led to gender confusion - hardly a mark of enlightenment - if not an attempt at gender anarchy.

Each man (etc!) does that which is right in his own eyes. This kind of personal freedom is fine until it gets to the point, as it must, where it affects others.

This tension is epitomised in the Aurora v Monkers debate. I can't see a way of reconciling these divergent views except by recognising personal freedom is not an absolute but must have limitations and restrictions.

 

[multitool]

Shouldn't you be in church?

 

[winjim]

Why after a couple of centuries of supposed Enlightenment are we even asking questions like this?

Previous generations up to about 15 years ago had no problems with knowing what words like man woman father mother son daughter actually meant.

It may be post industrial revolution gender roles became over prescribed into a 'he goes out to work she stays at home to look after the kids' binary, but it seems to me an overreaction to this has led to gender confusion - hardly a mark of enlightenment - if not an attempt at gender anarchy.

Each man (etc!) does that which is right in his own eyes. This kind of personal freedom is fine until it gets to the point, as it must, where it affects others.

I Interpret that response as agreeing that there is no single objective definition of sex which is inclusive of all individuals. And if there isn't for sex then it follows, to me at least, that there cannot be one for gender.

Can you define sex? Chromosomal, endocrine, other?

 

[multitool]

I interpreted his response as not realising that the Enlightenment is why we are questioning binary notions of sex.

 

[winjim]

I interpreted his response as not realising that the Enlightenment is why we are questioning binary notions of sex.

I'm not quite sure what he's saying. Either that it's a settled question with an easy answer, in which case fine let's have it, or that it's a complex question which cannot be answered, in which case he can't agree with the supposedly simple definitions given upthread.

 

[multitool]

He's missing the point, I suspect. He's trying to say that scientific truth was settled by the Enlightenment and current thinking is a return to pre-Enlightenment woo.

He's not realising that sonetimes more knowledge results in more doubt and questioning.

 

[winjim]

I don't think urine steroid profiling was a thing in the eighteenth century.

 

[multitool]

I'm sure when he has finished his weekly veneration of imaginary space monsters he'll be back to let us know what he meant.

 

[monkers]

This tension is epitomised in the Aurora v Monkers debate. I can't see a way of reconciling these divergent views except by recognising personal freedom is not an absolute but must have limitations and restrictions.

The tension is obvious. I am pro-humanity whatever it takes (inclusion even if it means having to budge up along the seat a bit). Aurora is pro- women's rights whatever it takes (exclusion based on a set of beliefs that everything male is of sufficient potential to be harmful to women).

To constantly refer to others having 'an ideology' while claiming she has none is such an obvious flaw.

My own 'ideology' isn't restricted to including trans people. I am in a similar state of despair concerning the denial of the rights of refugees coming to this country. And before anybody thinks I am saying that the situations are 'the same', clearly I am not. The comparison is in my state of feeling despair at humans preparing to switch off their own humanity in order to provide themselves with a sense of comfort while exercising prejudice in plain sight. Making false statements about the nature of science while saying that they are 'not prepared to be kind' is a kind of admission that they know that they are prepared to be cruel. This is a situation which to me seems deplorable. I'm not somebody prepared to sacrifice my humanity on the altar of prejudice.

In the analogy of immovable objects and irresistible forces, I consider myself one rock of humanity holding back the forces of evil whether they come from some wave of feminist ideology or ultra-right so-called Christian groups.

I will not 'other' my brothers and sisters in order to make myself more exclusive. That probably explains my tendency to wish to stick to international law than any other code since it is constructed by humans attempting to preserve humanity for all earth travellers, not the evil intents of rogues and bigots.