Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Giordano]

Are you claiming lions change sex? Fascinating.

What if the idea of sex is not so simple as to be able to easily apply the word “change” to it?

 

[Giordano]

Actually there aren't really any exceptions now that they've got good at looking carefully at babies with apparently ambiguous genitalia instead of saying "let's just bring it up as a girl."

I think you give doctors way too much credit for this. There are still many children who are assigned to one gender at birth who, when they go through puberty, are clearly misaligned.

 

[cullennz]

What if the idea of sex is not so simple as to be able to easily apply the word “change” to it?

It kind of is really.

 

[Mycroft]

And? They're still lionesses.

Who look and act like males, up to and including roaring, scent marking, and mounting females.

 

[caveman1917]

1. Sure.

2. I listed several properties of gender that typically used to define gender but that are variables. Gamete type of able to interbreed with others in a species? What of those that never could or no longer produce gametes at all? No gender at all?

3. Height has never been used to define a species uniquely. Genitalia, chromosomes, hormone levels have been used to define gender, yet these are overlapping variables.

Ok, I should've probably started with this question instead:

- Do you know the difference between sex and gender?

What you claimed was that sex (even specifying "biological sex" - as if there's any other) is not binary, now you're talking about how gender may or may not have been defined. Yet that makes no difference on the definition of sex, which is defined by the gamete type produced. Making sex a binary of either male or female, and hence 4 possibilities for an organism: male (sperm-producing), female (ova-producing), neither (some intersex would go here) or both (no humans in here, but some other species have this).

The fact that some continuous variables may be correlated with sex (for example different overlapping distributions of size for male and female) does not stop sex from being binary (there being only male and female), for exactly the same reason that the fact that some continuous variables may be correlated with species (for example different overlapping distributions of body height for cats and dogs) does not stop species from being discrete (there being only cats and dogs).

 

[Giordano]

Also CAIS. They're still women. We've been over this before. Functional SRY gene and functional androgen receptors, male. Lack either of these, female. Swyer syndrome lacks a functional SRY gene and CAIS lacks androgen receptors.

Disorders of sexual deveopment, sometimes referred to as intersex conditions, are sex-specific genetic or developmental disorders of people who are still, all of them, either male or female. And quite a lot of them are getting very vocal about having their medical problems weaponised by the trans lobby and being co-opted into an alphabet soup they want nothing to do with.

For most people with a DSD it's particularly important to them to know and have others understand that they are indeed men and women, not some strange half-way house. Some of them even put things like "not a clownfish" in their twitter bios.

I agree, they are women. But they are XYs. They have internal testis. They produce sperm, although infertile ones (as do many cis men). So why do you not shoehorn them into the male category given the definitions you and others have cited here?

Yes it is crucial for people wit a DSD to feel confident of their gender/sex. Same for other people who sincerely believe in their own gender/sex whatever their karyotype, gonads and gametes might suggest.

 

[Giordano]

It kind of is really.

Thus ignoring all the points I and others have presented here.

 

[cullennz]

Thus ignoring all the points I and others have presented here.

Do you at least accept gender and sex are different things?

 

[Giordano]

Ok, I should've probably started with this question instead:

- Do you know the difference between sex and gender?

What you claimed was that sex (even specifying "biological sex" - as if there's any other) is not binary, now you're talking about how gender may or may not have been defined. Yet that makes no difference on the definition of sex, which is defined by the gamete type produced. Making sex a binary of either male or female, and hence 4 possibilities for an organism: male (sperm-producing), female (ova-producing), neither (some intersex would go here) or both (no humans in here, but some other species have this).

The fact that some continuous variables may be correlated with sex (for example different overlapping distributions of size for male and female) does not stop sex from being binary (there being only male and female), for exactly the same reason that the fact that some continuous variables may be correlated with species (for example different overlapping distributions of body height for cats and dogs) does not stop species from being discrete (there being only cats and dogs).

I prefer to use the term gender to distinguish it from the act of procreation itself. Fine, if more confusing, to restrict the term sex to the ability to produce a given gamete.

So post-menopause “women” have no sex? Infertile “men” have no sex? Wasn’t this discussed way upthread?

Didn’t I just reply to your argument about overlapping genitalia size and overlapping species size? I argued that neither were good ways to distinguish sexes or to distinguish many species because they do overlap. So just looking at genitalia fails to fully define someone as male or female, though so many people think this is a crucial determinant trait. Maybe we are agreed on this point?

 

[Giordano]

Do you at least accept gender and sex are different things?

They are different properties that are defined in different ways. I think for most people gender is the broader, more important property in defining themselves (and who they might most wish to have sex with). But I am happy to discuss either.

 

[cullennz]

They are different properties that are defined in different ways. I think for most people gender is the broader, more important property in defining themselves (and who they might most wish to have sex with). But I am happy to discuss either.

You are adding sexual preference into the equation.

From my admittedly lacking in science understanding

You have

Sex - biological m/f and a very low amount of anomolies at birth

Gender - what your brain thinks you should be sex wise.

Sexual preference - who you want to shag

 

[Giordano]

I still don’t see why this is such an issue with so many posters. To me it’s much like debating if viruses are alive or not. It depends on the definitions one chooses to apply and one”s own subjective viewpoints. Except the virus debate doesn’t generate so much emotion. Except unlike the virus debate sex/gender definitions are important in real life to the happiness of many, many trans-gender people.

 

[Giordano]

You are adding sexual preference into the equation.

From my admittedly lacking in science understanding

You have

Sex - biological m/f and a very low amount of anomolies at birth

Gender - what your brain thinks you should be sex wise.

Sexual preference - who you want to shag

Notice the smiley next to this part of my answer?

 

[Giordano]

Got to go for now.

 

[caveman1917]

I prefer to use the term gender to distinguish it from the act of procreation itself. Fine, if more confusing, to restrict the term sex to the ability to produce a given gamete.

Well what you claimed was that biological sex was not binary, not that gender was not binary. How could it be more confusing to use the terms sex and gender properly as defined in their respective fields, rather than interchangeably in some vague personal way?

So post-menopause “women” have no sex? Infertile “men” have no sex?

Well yeah, post-menopause women do not engage in sexual reproduction (or asexual reproduction for that matter) and neither do infertile men, that much seems obvious. If you want to argue that puts them into the "neither" category from above then sure, you could do so. I suppose you could also argue that, given that humans don't change sex over their lifetime, a woman remains a female organism even after entering menopause. Which, btw, again supports sex being a binary since there are 4 categories (male, female, neither, both) and 4 = 2^2.

Wasn’t this discussed way upthread?

Yes, many times already. Sex wasn't a spectrum back then and it still isn't one now.

Didn’t I just reply to your argument about overlapping genitalia size and overlapping species size? I argued that neither were good ways to distinguish sexes or to distinguish many species because they do overlap. So just looking at genitalia fails to fully define someone as male or female, though so many people think this is a crucial determinant trait. Maybe we are agreed on this point?

Sure. But if you agree that these (and other such phenotype varieties) are bad ways to distinguish sexes, then why did you bring them up? Just because you can come up with bad ways to distinguish sexes doesn't mean you can't distinguish sexes. I can come up with bad ways to distinguish English from French text, say by tossing a coin, but that doesn't mean that I am generally incapable of distinguishing between English and French text.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not so cut & dry.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sses-grow-a-mane-and-start-acting-like-males/

Nope, still completely cut and dry. Testosterone will induce some male traits in females, but they remain females regardless.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been mugged 3 times. Everytime it was a black man. Do I get to be racist now? What about the 4th time? The 5th?

What's the cutoff? When does one demographic do enough bad things to me that I get to dislike the whole demographic? When does one demographic do enough things to another demographic that it becomes the norm to just assume they'll do it.

I don't dislike men. I am, on the whole, rather fond of them. That doesn't change the fact that men, as a general group, represent a risk to women, as a general group. There's no bigotry or hatred involved here, but there is heightened risk. If I'm out alone I'm hyper aware of any men around me. There are places I won't go alone. If I work late, I'll ask security to walk me to my car.

If you want to deride me and mock me for being a "scawed widdle woman" then go ahead and do so. I think it's rather neanderthalish, but if that's how you need to cope go for it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Men and women are the same except when they aren't except when they are except when they aren't except when they are except whenever women say so.

I'm almost at the point I'm declaring the whole "sex/gender" difference a coded way to get "Women are equal to men whenever that gives women an advantage, women and men aren't equal whenever that gives men an advantage" across without being too obvious about it.

I really never had you pegged for this viewpoint.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be fair, I agreed with one of them, and agreed it was self evident.

However, you are absolutely correct that it was a caricature. I wasn't in the mood to try and fix it so that it was something real. I didn't mean to agree with the caricature, but i think there is truth underlying the caricature.

Presumably the "I don't want that man near me" bit? There's a grain of truth in there, in that men are much more likely to be sexual aggressors than women are, and women are much more likely to be victims of sexual aggression. But on the whole, it's still an extreme caricature. There might be a verry few women out there who are afraid of all men all the time, and I'd be inclined to suggest that therapy would be in order for them. On the whole, women are careful and cognizant around strange men, and are well aware that they could be a danger to them. That's an every day part of being female. But it doesn't rise to anywhere near the level that JoeMorgue paraphrased it as.

 

[caveman1917]

I still don’t see why this is such an issue with so many posters. To me it’s much like debating if viruses are alive or not. It depends on the definitions one chooses to apply and one”s own subjective viewpoints. Except the virus debate doesn’t generate so much emotion. Except unlike the virus debate sex/gender definitions are important in real life to the happiness of many, many trans-gender people.

And I'm sure that flat definitions are important in real life to the happiness of flat-Earthers but that still doesn't make the proposition "the Earth is flat" evaluate to true, and people claiming it does do indeed get those claims challenged, such is life.

To me it's much like debating postmodernists has always been. Motte & Bailey tactics such as making an extraordinary claim like "biological sex is not binary" and then when challenged retreat into trivialities like "gender is not binary" or "not all women are exactly the same height, nor all men - aka continuous variables exist which are correlated with sex." And empty sophistry with appeals to changing the definitions of established scientific terms in order for said extraordinary claim to be true. And of course the appeals to social virtuousness (as opposed to sound argument and evidence) as a determining factor (special relativity was sexist after all for privileging the speed of light over all other speeds...maybe the speed of light is a spectrum too?).

And to top it all off there seems to be a very New Age kind of droning on regarding the term spectrum. It seems used the same way New Agers use "energy" or "vibration" - ie not actually meaning anything, just being a nice buzzword. "Sex is a spectrum" is, after all, not a definition of sex - it is a statement of the cardinality of sex (how many there supposedly are, in this case a continuum of them). Compare with "sex is the type of gamete produced" which doesn't just say "sex is binary" (ie there are two sexes) but actually defines the term sex. None of the arguments presenting the "sex is a spectrum" claim have actually defined sex, let alone shown it to be a spectrum. Hence the statement "sex is a spectrum" - even though appearing prominently in the sources given - seems to have no other function than buzzword exchange. "The universe is, like, vibrations man! Wow, pass the bong man!"