Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

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.)

I would categorise them as male or female based on whether they were male or female. To identify their sex I would likely rely on secondary sexual characteristics; but having all or none of the typical secondary characteristics of their sex is not what makes them their sex. Being their sex is what makes them their sex.

What would be the exceptions to being male or female? (Having established that the tiny % of people with dsd's are still male or female). You might accidentally assign someone to the wrong sex based on a myriad of things, but we are born categorised.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unwittingly AS is exercising a sifting mechanism whereby she is sorting by reproductive sex,

It's not a sifting mechanism, it's simply science. Unfortunately your side desperately grasp at anything in order to say men can be women.
'Some women don't have periods' - transwomen don't have periods so they can be women.
'Women without uterus's are still women' - transwomen don't have uterus's so they can be women.
'Women usually have breasts' - hrt gives you breasts so transwomen can be women.

 

[winjim]

I would categorise them as male or female based on whether they were male or female.

What?

 

[winjim]

Being their sex is what makes them their sex

Eh?

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, it is about the ongoing stigmatising of those trans people who are innocent of any crime, but all tarred with the same brush.

By 'tarred with the same brush' what you actually mean is 'treated like we treat all other males' and, in very limited situations, excluded from female spaces.

 

[winjim]

What?

Eh?

You're using the same sort of language that I use when I'm trying to make a point by being deliberately abstruse.

 

[monkers]

Well quite. Can we? Should we? Who does it help and who does it hinder? It's all interesting stuff but it does tend to get drowned out somewhat.

As I said a few times upthread, I've specifically not brought up DSDs and I'm not really even approaching this from a trans rights or even feminist point of view. But we do frequently see accusations of people being unable to define a woman, usually I feel as a kind of gotcha, a signal to others. We've had someone say it's easy, in fact two people although I'm unsure if their definitions are quite in agreement so...

The define what a woman is, is intended as a 'gotcha' question. Whatever answer is given will never be the not be correct answer for all people, let alone all women.

Likewise Woman: adult human female. This is another 'gotcha' type piece of linguistic nonsense, since it attempts to conflate gender identity and biological sex as being the same, or otherwise to suggest that the only way to be a woman is to not have a gender identity. When corrected it becomes Woman: adult human girl which becomes correct for all adult cis gender women.

The statement that biological sex is real, but gender identity is just in people's heads, is yet another piece of nonsense because people can and do function without genitals, but not without a brain. Yet the cry is, trans people think that gender trumps sex - well yes the biological reality is that it does.

 

[monkers]

I would categorise them as male or female based on whether they were male or female.

Brexit is Brexit. There we are all sorted. That went well didn't it?

 

[monkers]

By 'tarred with the same brush' what you actually mean is 'treated like we treat all other males' and, in very limited situations, excluded from female spaces.

No, I mean stigmatising those people with vanishingly small potential for rape with those with higher potential for rape. Here's the thing, trans women do not go to the women's loo because they intend to rape, they just need to go to the loo. If a trans woman was even minded to attempt rape they'd know that there is only one outcome, a failed attempt at rape, which means they won't bother to attempt it even if so inclined. Trans women are not inclined or equipped to rape. When trans women have been convicted of rape, the crimes has usually been historic, being some years previous. That doesn't mean that I'm saying they shouldn't go to prison for the crime.

 

[monkers]

And again, you miss the point that the majority of the debate is not about "these people". It is about the people who want to suppress free speech, remove women's rights and don't recognise that there is a threat from those who are not genuinely trans.

I provided a brief explanation to you earlier - there is no such thing as absolute free speech. In the UK and many other countries, one can not simply deliver what is tantamount to hate speech and pretend there is immunity by saying 'free speech innit'.

There are no 'women's rights' or men's rights. There are human rights, some have more implications for women, some have more implications for men.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What?

I think you are being disingenuous here, Winjim. You know that being male or female is simply a state of being. It's based on biology; often identified by secondary characteristics, usually accurately but not always. What you are seeking is a tick list so you can say, 'Yes, but what about women who don't have breasts?' and then say that we are reducing being a woman down to body parts.

And right on cue ...

The statement that biological sex is real, but gender identity is just in people's heads, is yet another piece of nonsense because people can and do function without genitals, but not without a brain. Yet the cry is, trans people think that gender trumps sex - well yes the biological reality is that it does.

A person without genitals is still male or female. A brain dead person is still male or female. A dead body is still male or female. A skeleton is.

How can a nebulous, undefined feeling in your head, that only some people have, be a biological reality? Why on earth should it be allowed to trump the material reality of sex based oppression in things like safeguarding and legislation?

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, I mean stigmatising those people with vanishingly small potential for rape with those with higher potential for rape.

We don't base safeguarding on 'probably won't' we base it on 'has the potential to/more likely to' and worse case scenarios. Also, this is the usual setting the bar at actual rape rather than 'lesser' assaults and just dignity and privacy.

By your criteria any man in a wheelchair should have access to women's toilets and changing rooms. I've yet to see them ask for it. Most men understand this because they know that however lovely they are as an individual, women can feel uncomfortable having them around at certain times.

 

[winjim]

I think you are being disingenuous here, Winjim. You know that being male or female is simply a state of being. It's based on biology; often identified by secondary characteristics, usually accurately but not always. What you are seeking is a tick list so you can say, 'Yes, but what about women who don't have breasts?' and then say that we are reducing being a woman down to body parts.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I'm asking how you define sex, how you categorise male and female* and whether your categorisation includes all individuals. You seem to be just waving your hands and saying 'something something biology' which doesn't really mean anything.

You may have noticed that I have felt the need to reiterate ad naseum that this isn't intended as a gotcha, and it really isn't. If you have an objective definition of male and female that applies unambiguously to every individual then I would be interested to hear it.

*In case of confusion I'm happy with you to use man/woman and male/female interchangeably since I understand you don't see sex and gender as spearate things. Feel free to correct me if I have that wrong.

ETA: I'm still interested in the 'every cell in your body' thing if you'd care to elaborate.

 

[monkers]

We don't base safeguarding on 'probably won't' we base it on 'has the potential to/more likely to' and worse case scenarios. Also, this is the usual setting the bar at actual rape rather than 'lesser' assaults and just dignity and privacy.

By your criteria any man in a wheelchair should have access to women's toilets and changing rooms. I've yet to see them ask for it. Most men understand this because they know that however lovely they are as an individual, women can feel uncomfortable having them around at certain times.

Just a succession of bogus arguments. A man in a wheelchair doesn't go to the women's loo because his sexual identity and gender identity are congruent, male / man. It has no place in the discussion.

Safeguarding related to risk assessment is absolutely based on probability. Clearly you don't understand the process. If a person in the women's toilet has no functional capacity for rape, then the probability for rape is zero. The control measure is 'no action required'.

 

[multitool]

...and let's just remind ourselves that the whole GC movement is predicated on casting trans women as a predatory threat.

One that, in the real world, has yet to present itself.