Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I'm quoting this just so people can see the ridiculousness of it in its stand alone glory. Emotive special pleading that transwomen are special and not like other men. You've described what oral rape is, and you mocked it and would now have us believe that a male on hrt is somehow completely absolved of all the risks that make us exclude other males. In which case lots of elderly men, men with illnesses that cause erectile dysfunction, and many disabled men should also be considered absolutely risk free around women and girls. Funnily enough noone is arguing for that, including the men who fall into those categories.

Not 'special' but incapable. Isn't the difference obvious to you? You can treat the question as rhetorical because I already know your answer.

BTW I didn't mock oral rape, I mocked you with justification.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, apparently Wolf did not act until after the camera had been broken, but that is by the by. The report confirms that the woman was not 70 as you exaggerate but 61, which is also by the by.

I haven't said the woman punched by Tara Woolf was 70. I think you are confusing this with the 70 year old woman punched in New Zealand, also by transactivists.

In other words Wolf was not found guilty of a violent beating of a harmless 70 year old innocent female bystander. The camera is more relevant to the case for its usage than its breakage.

No, not in other words 'not guilty'. They were found guilty of 'beating by assault'. Telling us what they were not found guilty of is simply trying to deflect from their actual conviction.

 

[winjim]

People with dsd's are rare. Around 0.02% of all births. And the percentage of that 0.02% who also have ambiguous genitalia and aren't correctly identified as male or female at birth is even smaller.

They are still only male or female, not a third sex. There's a reason just about every dsd athlete we hear about is from the developing world. The lack of scans, hospital births, post birth examination, and poor post natal care means dad's aren't picked up on like they are in other countries. There are some dsd's that aren't picked up until puberty but you are talking about less than 10% of the 0.02%. Most people with dsd's are raised as their correct biological sex so the issue of single sex spaces isn't actually much of an issue. It really has very little to do with the discussion on transgender issues other than as an attempt to try to suggest that sex is on a spectrum.

People only use 'biological' in front of man and woman because some have attempted to redefine what man and women means as being unrelated to biology. It's superfluous but apparently necessary on occasion so we know who we are talking about.

There aren't any subcategories of the two sexes. How can there be? It's biological. No man is any less a man than any other man. No woman any less a woman than any other woman. Long after humans beings have wiped themselves from the face of the earth there will still only be 2 sexes in mammals.

So toilet wise, just use the one appropriate for your birth sex. Or campaign for a third unisex space.

You can't dismiss individuals with DSDs just because they're rare. That's ableist nonsense, they are still people.

It sounds like you want to do away with the category of 'intersex'. That puts you at odds with @icowden's definitions so means we can no longer consider them 'easy' since we don't all agree.

So can you categorise the sexes in a meaningful way which includes all individuals and allows differentiation between them in all circumstances?



Again. Not a gotcha.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not 'special' but incapable. Isn't the difference obvious to you? You can treat the question as rhetorical because I already know your answer.

Yes, and lots of other blokes are theoretically incapable of having an erection through illness or disability. Probably plenty on CC, it's a common ailment. Never seen one of them argue that it makes them a special case where the normal rules of safeguarding shouldn't apply because they are technically 'incapable'. Not once.

 

[monkers]

I haven't said the woman punched by Tara Woolf was 70. I think you are confusing this with the 70 year old woman punched in New Zealand, also by transactivists.


No, not in other words 'not guilty'. They were found guilty of 'beating by assault'. Telling us what they were not found guilty of is simply trying to deflect from their actual conviction.

You really are sounding quite nuts. I did not say they were not guilty, I quoted the judge as saying low culpability and low injury. He did so because of the acknowledged provocation.

This is not just you not paying attention is it? This is your feeble attempt to twist just about everything.

Yes, and lots of other blokes are theoretically incapable of having an erection through illness or disability. Probably plenty on CC, it's a common ailment. Never seen one of them argue that it makes them a special case where the normal rules of safeguarding shouldn't apply because they are technically 'incapable'. Not once.

Whataboutery. This has no validity to your claim that trans women who have been taking HRT are rapists. Clearly the probability is infinitesimally small. These various and spurious facts that you claim, that these women could be guilty of rape just as often or more than cis men is too ridiculous for words.

You lose all credibility with these nonsense claims.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You can't dismiss individuals with DSDs just because they're rare. That's ableist nonsense, they are still people.

I'm doing the opposite. If you suggest they are some other 3rd sex it's you who are dehumanising them. They are all male or female, just like everybody else.

It sounds like you want to do away with the category of 'intersex'. That puts you at odds with @icowden's definitions so means we can no longer consider them 'easy' since we don't all agree.

I disagree that they are a third category, yes. The vast, vast majority of scientists still consider sex to be binary so it's a bit like saying we can't easily say humans are bipeds because occasionally babies are born with only one leg. Whereas we can, very easily. So yes, I think it is easy to define male and female.

So can you categorise the sexes in a meaningful way which includes all individuals and allows differentiation between them in all circumstances?
Again. Not a gotcha.

Every mammal is male or female because it's a biological category. What do you mean by differentiation in all circumstances?

 

[winjim]

I admire your optimism.

There's a minority of posts in this thread which I find very interesting indeed.

 

[winjim]

So yes, I think it is easy to define male and female.

Go on then.

 

[monkers]

I haven't said the woman punched by Tara Woolf was 70. I think you are confusing this with the 70 year old woman punched in New Zealand, also by transactivists.


No, not in other words 'not guilty'. They were found guilty of 'beating by assault'. Telling us what they were not found guilty of is simply trying to deflect from their actual conviction.

They were not found guilty of 'male violence' for one thing, or for violent beating for another.

As she was convicted feminist Dr Julia Long, who gave evidence in the case, shouted into her phone 'Guilty, guilty, violent. The man is guilty. I don't care.'

Then then went to the court's balcony and shouted: 'Guilty, guilty of male violence!'

This piece of nonsense is from your link. One hit, and when the head-lock was released there was no gratuitous violence. If that woman had head-locked me, I would have punched her too if that was the only way to get her to release.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You really are sounding quite nuts. I did not say they were not guilty, I quoted the judge as saying low culpability and low injury. He did so because of the acknowledged provocation.

This is not just you not paying attention is it? This is your feeble attempt to twist just about everything.


Whataboutery. This has no validity to your claim that trans women who have been taking HRT are rapists. Clearly the probability is infinitesimally small. These various and spurious facts that you claim, that these women could be guilty of rape just as often or more than cis men is too ridiculous for words.

You lose all credibility with these nonsense claims.

You have so many stretches going on it's a wonder you haven't done yourself an injury. It must be exhausting finding new ways to defend this stuff.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Go on then.

Bodies that have evolved along one of 2 reproductive pathways. Large and small gametes. And yes, infertile women and women who've had hysterectomies are still women.

 

[monkers]

Every mammal is male or female because it's a biological category. What do you mean by differentiation in all circumstances?

Oh I recognise this argument. How does it go? Oh yes, trans woman aren't women because they can't have children.

Wasn't that the same argument that Andrea Leadsome used against Theresa May in the PM selection process? Not woman enough for the job because unlike AL she's never had children.

 

[classic33]

Yes, and lots of other blokes are theoretically incapable of having an erection through illness or disability. Probably plenty on CC, it's a common ailment. Never seen one of them argue that it makes them a special case where the normal rules of safeguarding shouldn't apply because they are technically 'incapable'. Not once.

I'm reduced to waterworks only following a diagnoses of cancer in '99, and removal later the same year.

In the old N&CA on CC, you laughed at this. Saying it's still possible for anyone in a similar condition to still be a danger to women. How exactly you never answered, choosing to mock the situation I'm in. You never ignored the point raised, just sought to laugh at someone in that position.

You are the biggest user of that argument on here, no-one else comes close.

 

[winjim]

Bodies that have evolved along one of 2 reproductive pathways. Large and small gametes. And yes, infertile women and women who've had hysterectomies are still women.

That does seem kind of vague to me. Any chance you could be more specific? If there was a person in front of you and you had to assign them a category of 'man' or 'woman', how would you go about it?

Remember I'm trying to find an 'easy' system of categorising all individuals with no exceptions. (I guess we could allow some exceptions if we put them in the 'not woman' pile since the original question was, as it always seems to be, 'what is a woman' but let's set that aside.)

 

[Rusty Nails]

There's a minority of posts in this thread which I find very interesting indeed.

I started off wanting to know more about the issue and at the start it was very illuminating, but for a while now has generated far more heat than light. There is some occasional stuff of interest but has to be searched for amidst the acrimony and mud-slinging whataboutery over which side has the nastiest supporters and which is twisting the other's words.