monkers
Legendary Member
Nonsense. You've allowed Aurora and CXR to start living rent-free in your head.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Nonsense. You've allowed Aurora and CXR to start living rent-free in your head.
icowden
Legendary Member
Which part of what I posted was nonsense and why? If you want to challenge what is a fairly straight forward assertion, you need to provide reasoning.
Or are you now saying that transwomen are not women and thus shouldn't be considered a subset of women?
monkers
Legendary Member
Male and female pertain to sex. Man, woman, boy, and girl pertain to gender identity, or perceived gender identity. Scientists say that sex is not binary but bimodal. Gender identity can manifest itself in a number of ways including 'non-binary'.
The Gender Recognition Act provides the mechanism for those people to apply to the state to have their gender identity recognised.
Given this, the terms 'trans women' and cis women are subsets of the gender identity of people as recognised by the state. Those people who feel that they are non-binary or some other which outside of the binary are not accommodated by the Act (that is to say, the state).
AS argues that trans women make cis women a subset of their own sex. This is not so. It would be a reasonable argument to say that trans women and cis women are subsets of women on the basis of gender identity, which I happen to think they are.
And so your argument that you have borrowed from the GCs fails in reasoning for the reason I've given above, but it doesn't rest there, since GCs say that gender identity does not exist. Therefore it leads to the conclusion that 'women' is a class of people that includes all people with the gender identity of being a woman, and excludes all those who do not have the gender identity of a woman. Therefore Aurora Saab is not a technically a woman; but to be clear she is female and free to identify however she wishes, including being a 'woman'.
Addendum ... see posts by @Newhouse for those ill-conceived remarks of yours about skin colour.
Last edited:
classic33
Senior Member
It's proper name is Gold Cup Day, not "Ladies Day".
It became "Ladies Day" in 1823/1826 when women were given tickets previously only given to men.
classic33
Senior Member
Which as I said is a carryover from the early testing on animals, most notably mice and chickens.
monkers
Legendary Member
Oh wait until he realises that there is not tight case of causation of aggression by testosterone levels alone.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Any which you genuinely are. Should I be allowed to identify as one of your heritages, even if I aren't one of them? Especially when doing so has implications for the people who are of that heritage?
monkers
Legendary Member
If you believe that this demonstrates that anyone with testosterone is aggressive, and that anyone without testosterone can not be, then that is an error.
Perhaps read up on the side effects of using supplementary testosterone?
monkers
Legendary Member
AuroraSaab
Squire
No, they don't. I note you've dropped the 'sex is a spectrum' phrase nonsense but the effect is the same. If you think sex is bimodal then you have the implication that some males are more male than others and some females are more female than others. Which simply isn't true. The least 'manly' male (by whatever metric) is as male as the most manly.
You can only include transwomen in the sex class of Women by using linguistic gymnastics which redefine what the word Woman means.
In which case anything can be redefined to mean anything ...
No, it very obviously doesn't. The conclusion of saying innate gender identity doesn't exist is that sex is a biological category, which you can't opt in and out of at will. Which doesn't matter 99% of the time, but when it does matter it often matters very much.
AuroraSaab
Squire
In that case, I look forward to publishing a book and having it considered for the Coretta Scott King prize, or having my achievements recognised at the Asian Achievers awards.
monkers
Legendary Member
More irrational twaddle.
You've gone through a process of trying to prove that gender identity is binary by using skin colour as a proof of the existence of a binary. This against your denial that gender identity can not exist on the evidence that you have no sense of your own, and trying to force that view with something which everybody knows is not a binary. My father was blind but he'd laugh at the stupidity of this argument. Next you'll be claiming that sight is binary too, everyone sees either everything or nothing.
Last edited:
newfhouse
pleb
I don't mind, for most purposes, how you choose to identify. I'm not precious about it.
There may be a few unusual and limited circumstances where your choice might make me wonder about possible harm. I guess context and intent would be relevant to any assessment I may need to make.
AuroraSaab
Squire
99% of the time it doesn't matter how someone identifies, I agree.
Which is pretty much what people are asking for. Take sex into account when it matters, otherwise treat everybody the same. I wouldn't call sports, prisons, intimate care providers, domestic violence refuges unusual circumstances though, just part of the few but important ones where sex matters. (Which is exactly what the Equality Act says).
Edited for clarity.
