Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Rolfe]

Women with Swyer's symdrome and CAIS women do not produce sperm. Anyone who produces sperm is male. Certainly there are males who do not produce sperm, but sperm production is an absolute definer of being of the male sex. Read the "DrFondOfBeetles" thread again.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

(Seems to me you're just giving her guff for accurately but briefly paraphrasing Forstater's actual beliefs, as opposed to misstating them.)

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Rowling said that the judge was ruling on a philosophical belief. The judge was actually ruling on whether it was a philosophical belief.

Rowling said that the belief in question was that sex is determined by biology (a belief that nobody disagrees with, BTW), when the actual belief in question was that and that gender was not a "reality" and that femaleness was determined by biology.

Andrew Carter did so over and over again.

And yet you pounced on one thing in order to falsely categorise it as wrong, and thereby hand-wave away everything he said.

Do you disagree with such a characterization?

She was equivocating. In non-legal terms the belief could be called philosophical, but the thing that was under discussion was a legal ruling, where the term "philosophical belief" has a specific meaning.

The most charitable interpretation is that she was equivocating because she didn't understand what she was talking about. I'm disinclined to apply a charitable interpretation to her words, given her past history and, indeed, her mischaracterisation of the substance of that case or of what it was that Forstarter was actually fighting for - which, let's be clear, was the right to create a hostile work environment for trans people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If person A and person B are capable of engaging in sexual intercourse with the result that person B becomes pregnant, then person A is a male and person B is a female.

Then infertile people are neither?

 

[d4m10n]

Rowling said that the judge was ruling on a philosophical belief. The judge was actually ruling on whether it was a philosophical belief.

Two things here:

1) The judge was ruling on whether it was the kind of philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act of 2010. In the decision itself, the phrasing is "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA."

2) Rowling actually said that Forstater was "asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law." This is essentially what Forstater was actually asking, though the belief at issue was a bit more teased out:

Claimant believes that “sex” is a material reality which should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity”. Being female is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity.

I'm not about to fault Rowling for brevity, given that the Forstater case was just one of many events she felt compelled to summarize in her letter.

Rowling said that the belief in question was that sex is determined by biology (a belief that nobody disagrees with, BTW), when the actual belief in question was that and that gender was not a "reality" and that femaleness was determined by biology.

I cannot find the part of the judgment where the Claimant says gender is not a reality, nor the part of Rowling's essay where she mischaracterizes this claim.

In non-legal terms the belief could be called philosophical, but the thing that was under discussion was a legal ruling, where the term "philosophical belief" has a specific meaning.

Again "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA" does not encompass the whole universe of possible philosophical beliefs, and it is not remotely equivocal or deceptive for Rowling to expect readers take this into account. You are nitpicking based on a singularly uncharitable interpretation, and would do better to find a claim that is falsifiable when interpreted straightforwardly and in context.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Two things here:

1) The judge was ruling on whether it was the kind of philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act of 2010. In the decision itself, the phrasing is "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA."

That means that he was looking at whether her belief is a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act of 2010. Here is the relevant section of Chapter 1, which described protected characteristics:

Religion or belief
(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.

You'll note that it says "any [...] philosophical belief". All philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act of 2010. The judge was determining whether her beliefs were a philosophical belief under the law. He goes in to detail about the criteria he uses, and why he rejected it, if you read it.

2) Rowling actually said that Forstater was "asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law." This is essentially what Forstater was actually asking, though the belief at issue was a bit more teased out:

If here you're trying to say that Forstater was starting from the premise that her belief was philosophical and therefore protected then yes, obviously. That Rowling started from the premise that it was a philosophical belief was, at best interpretation, equivocation through lack of understanding of what the terms she was using actually meant.

I'm not about to fault Rowling for brevity, given that the Forstater case was just one of many events she felt compelled to summarize in her letter.

I'm not faulting her for brevity. I'm faulting her for being misleading.

I cannot find the part of the judgment where the Claimant says gender is not a reality, nor the part of Rowling's essay where she mischaracterizes this claim.

Of course you can't. Well, I'm still not going to repeat myself ad nauseum for you.

Again "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA" does not encompass the whole universe of possible philosophical beliefs[...]

Legally, it does.

You are nitpicking based on a singularly uncharitable interpretation, and would do better to find a claim that is falsifiable when interpreted straightforwardly.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm explaining how Rowling was equivocating. Whether she was doing so through malice or ignorance I'm choosing not to speculate on.

As for finding a better claim, it was you who singled that bit out, not me, because you thought it was an easy way to dismiss the entire rebuttal.

 

[caveman1917]

Women with Swyer's symdrome and CAIS women do not produce sperm.

Oh well in that case disregard my claim of CAIS women being either male or neither, I was operating under the assumption that they produce infertile sperm as per Giordano's earlier claim to that effect:

They have internal testis. They produce sperm, although infertile ones (as do many cis men).

 

[Meadmaker]

Then infertile people are neither?

Wrong. Once again, it is a case of confusing necessary versus sufficient conditions.

 

[caveman1917]

Then infertile people are neither?

And? Infertile people aren't even human. By the definition of species, an organism is a member of a species iff it can successfully reproduce with at least one other member of that species. Infertile people can't reproduce with any humans, therefor they are not members of the human species.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's really quite derisive and insulting, by the way.

"I'm going to assume your default setting is 'rapist.'"
"Can you... like not do that?"
"*Gasps* Well that is rather derisive, don't you think?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

A person who has a penis and an XY chromosome who "identifies" as a woman is a completely different discussion than actual legit intersexual medical conditions like being brought up.

There's a difference between simply "a short person" and a person who is short because they actually have a dwarfism type medical condition but neither of them are a 6 foot 4 person who "identifies as short."

 

[Belz...]

No, they are not one or the other for the many reasons I stated. And intersex states are one reason they are not one or the other.

Simply repeating that you've stated something does not demonstrate that the statement is correct.

If you think intersex people are not one or the other, you have been misinformed.

As I stated several times the idea we should only be talking about sex and not gender is meant as a distraction.

No one said that. My point is that you are confusing the two with your argument. As I've already stated.

Furthermore, the distinction between sex and gender was minimal until very recently. Changing a definition does not change the reality of what the word represents.

We are discussing the proper place in society of trans individuals

I think we agree that the answer to that is "whatever trans individual want", up to a reasonable degree.

that really relates to gender identification.

Only if you define "gender" as "gender identity", which is silly.

Namely gender, and even sex, are not binary. Like it or not. Say it isn’t true over and over again. But the biology is very clear as I explained above.

Your explanation was incorrect. That's what you refuse to understand.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Wrong. Once again, it is a case of confusing necessary versus sufficient conditions.

Then can you rephrase the following to make it inclusive of infertile people?

If person A and person B are capable of engaging in sexual intercourse with the result that person B becomes pregnant, then person A is a male and person B is a female.

Remember, the goal here is to define "male" and "female" in a way that is unequivocal, clear, and which includes every human being on the planet.

 

[Giordano]

Women with Swyer's symdrome and CAIS women do not produce sperm. Anyone who produces sperm is male. Certainly there are males who do not produce sperm, but sperm production is an absolute definer of being of the male sex. Read the "DrFondOfBeetles" thread again.

As I stated from the beginning, women with CAIS have internal testis and undergo spermatogenesis, but produce immature sperm that are not fertile. The latter very similar to the situation prior to puberty in boys.

Are they kind- of - males by the sex test? Perhaps somewhere in the non binary zone of the sex spectrum? Or are prepubescent boys not males?

 

[d4m10n]

All philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act of 2010.

No. The act only protects the subset of philosophical beliefs which are considered "worthy of respect in a democratic society" (as determined by the judge) and which do not adversely impact other people's fundamental rights. There are plenty of sincerely held philosophical beliefs which fail either or both of these tests, a few of which we've seen typed out in this very thread.

As for finding a better claim, it was you who singled that bit out, not me, because you thought it was an easy way to dismiss the entire rebuttal.

Had you ever previously bothered to quote something Rowling wrote which you considered specifically debunked, I need not have bothered picking a specific point of contention.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A person who has a penis and an XY chromosome who "identifies" as a woman is a completely different discussion than actual legit intersexual medical conditions like being brought up.

There's a difference between simply "a short person" and a person who is short because they actually have a dwarfism type medical condition but neither of them are a 6 foot 4 person who "identifies as short."

What about a person who was 6'4" but got into an accident and lost both legs and is now 3'8"? Are they allowed to consider themselves short? Use the reserved-for-the-short-people booster seat at the restaurant? Or is that "unearned privilege" and "invading short spaces"? Does their very existence serve as an insult to the precious feelings of the "natally short"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No. The act only protects the subset of philosophical beliefs which are considered "worthy of respect in a democratic society" (as determined by the judge) and which do not adversely impact other people's fundamental rights. There are plenty of sincerely held philosophical beliefs which fail either or both of these tests.

You do realise that what you linked to agrees with what i've said, and not with you, right? The section heading you linked to is literally "What qualifies as a philosophical belief?" Not "What qualifies as a protected philosophical belief?". Not "Which philosophical beliefs are protected?". "What qualifies as a philosophical belief?".

Legally, the term "philosophical belief" has a precise meaning, and all philosophical beliefs are protected speech. The links that both you and I have provided concur on this.

Using the term "philosophical belief" in its non-legal sense when talking about a legal ruling on whether or not something is a philosophical belief is equivocation.

Had you ever previously bothered to quote something Rowling wrote which you considered specifically debunked, I need not have bothered picking a specific point of contention.

Oh, well, I guess you're wholly justified in hand-waving away the deconstruction of it and pretending like everything Rowling said was entirely accurate and fair. That's some rigorous critical thinking, right there.

 

[Rolfe]

As I stated from the beginning, women with CAIS have internal testis and undergo spermatogenesis, but produce immature sperm that are not fertile. The latter very similar to the situation prior to puberty in boys.

Are they kind- of - males by the sex test? Perhaps somewhere in the non binary zone of the sex spectrum? Or are prepubescent boys not males?

No they don't. You are mistaken about the features of CAIS.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What about a person who was 6'4" but got into an accident and lost both legs and is now 3'8"? Are they allowed to consider themselves short? Use the reserved-for-the-short-people booster seat at the restaurant? Or is that "unearned privilege" and "invading short spaces"? Does their very existence serve as an insult to the precious feelings of the "natally short"?

Yes because the double amputee 3'8" person is actually short.

A person walking on their knees like Dorf (crap there's a deep cut reference I'm sure everyone is going to get) because they see themselves as a "short person trapped in the body of a tall person" is not actually short.

"Short" is a descriptive term, not a political party. Words mean things.

That's a thing by the way, transabled people who like perfectly normal working legs but use wheelchairs because their "body image" is that of a disabled person. I'd love to know why that's different.

 

[Ziggurat]

What about a person who was 6'4" but got into an accident and lost both legs and is now 3'8"? Are they allowed to consider themselves short? Use the reserved-for-the-short-people booster seat at the restaurant? Or is that "unearned privilege" and "invading short spaces"? Does their very existence serve as an insult to the precious feelings of the "natally short"?

You picked a strange example for this discussion. What sort of accident to you imagine can turn a man into a woman, or vice versa?

I also wasn't aware of exclusive "short spaces" that tall people were trying to gain access to. But I guess there's a kink for everything.

 

[d4m10n]

Using the term "philosophical belief" in its non-legal sense when talking about a legal ruling on whether or not something is a philosophical belief is equivocation.

Not at all, if it is clear from context that the author meant "philosophical belief" in the usual rather than legal sense.

Again, here is what Rowling wrote:
"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Now let's substitute in either the usual or the legal interpretation of the phrase.

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the sense protected under British law) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the general sense of the phrase) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Only one of these interpretations makes any sense, the other is hopelessly tautological. You are deliberately choosing the wrong one in order to make Rowling seem malicious or incompetent.