Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[mumblethrax]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point, Joe.

 

[Lplus]

There is no distinction between sex and gender in the eyes of the law. Changing your legal sex is how you change your gender for legal purposes.

The only relevant question is can the state segregate on the basis of gender identity when serious interests are at stake? And the answer is, duh.

The law is therefore an ass.

Furthermore, since it seems gender is not considered to be binary, how is the segregation to be defined?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point, Joe.

It is really not that hard to get.

You know damn well that most people in a prison setting don't give one tin flip about someone's "selective personal internal gender identity that they personally define as with sprinkles."

If you throw someone with breasts and a vagina into prison, they are going to be seen as a woman/female for literally any practical purpose worth talking about.

And no going "There's a scenario where we have to play it this way" is not an anti-trans stance.

 

[mumblethrax]

You know damn well that most people in a prison setting don't give one tin flip about someone's "selective personal internal gender identity that they personally define as with sprinkles."

I made that pretty explicit.

If you throw someone with breasts and a vagina into prison, they are going to be a woman/female for literally any practical purpose worth talking about.

I'm unclear on what you think the problem is here.

 

[mumblethrax]

The law is therefore an ass.

What? I'm saying they certainly can and certainly will treat trans and cis people differently. What are you even objecting to?

Furthermore, since it seems gender is not considered to be binary, how is the segregation to be defined?

If a state recognizes a legal sex other than male or female, then they'll be segregating on the basis of legal sex.

 

[Lplus]

What? I'm saying they certainly can and certainly will treat trans and cis people differently. What are you even objecting to?

If the law sees no distinction between sex and gender than the law is an ass.

If a state recognizes a legal sex other than male or female, then they'll be segregating on the basis of legal sex.

Then the state is an ass.

 

[mumblethrax]

If the law sees no distinction between sex and gender than the law is an ass.

What do you think a change in legal sex/gender is, exactly? Are you saying you think there should be two sets checkboxes on state-issued ID, one for each? I'm confident that any such proposal would be roundly mocked as woke nonsense.

The fact that the state does not recognize such a distinction does not preclude treating trans and cis people differently. They just don't have separate sex and gender statuses.

You're imagining that a change in legal sex means everyone involved has to throw up their hands and say "Welp, she's a woman, nothing we can do but put her in gen pop with other women." It's ridiculously naive.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nonsense - as above, the person in question committed the murders prior to being incarcerated or the question of gender arising.

Good point. As long as you rape and murder a 14-year-old girl BEFORE you ask to be put in a women's prison, you are OK. Thanks for that vital distinction that I had until now overlooked.

 

[The Atheist]

Their most vulnerable outside prison would be in any relationship. That is by far where women remain horribly vulnerable, we've only just started to recognise such abuse as coercive control. Anyone concerned about women being victims of abuse, rape and murder should be looking as to what can be done to reduce the risk in everyday life.

That of course does not mean we should look to increase risk in less vulnerable situations.

Bravo!!

In NZ, an intimate partner (almost always a male) kills their intimate partner about once a week on average.

Yeah I like how at no point in this discourse does "Hey many NOBODY should get raped or assaulted in prison" comes up, like we've just given up on that as even a possibility.

Also bravo!!

If I could, I'd cut the thread to just those two posts.

Good point. As long as you rape and murder a 14-year-old girl BEFORE you ask to be put in a women's prison, you are OK. Thanks for that vital distinction that I had until now overlooked.

Ok, I admit I was wrong.

I credited you with more sense than you're showing.

 

[Lplus]

What do you think a change in legal sex/gender is, exactly? Are you saying you think there should be two sets checkboxes on state-issued ID, one for each? I'm confident that any such proposal would be roundly mocked as woke nonsense.

I don't think there should be a change in legal sex at all since changing sex is impossible. The idea of two checkboxes never crossed my mind, but since you suggested it, why not? and anyway I thought woke was all the rage these days.

The fact that the state does not recognize such a distinction does not preclude treating trans and cis people differently. They just don't have separate sex and gender statuses.

But if there were seperate sex and gender the two could be dealt with under the law in a manner that protected the sex segregation of male and female but provided additional protection and perhaps segregation for genders.

You're imagining that a change in legal sex means everyone involved has to throw up their hands and say "Welp, she's a woman, nothing we can do but put her in gen pop with other women." It's ridiculously naive.

That would appear to be the goal of the trans activists who are pushing for self id.

The question of how the genders would be segregated still exists. If there is no reference to biological sex then the definition of gender becomes entirely dependent on the internal assessment of each individual and the words man and woman become entirely social constructs and pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Lplus]

Bravo!!

In NZ, an intimate partner (almost always a male) kills their intimate partner about once a week on average.



Also bravo!!

If I could, I'd cut the thread to just those two posts.

Ok, I admit I was wrong.

I credited you with more sense than you're showing.

Neither of which are actually on the topic of whether trans women are women.

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't think there should be a change in legal sex at all since changing sex is impossible. The idea of two checkboxes never crossed my mind, but since you suggested it, why not? and anyway I thought woke was all the rage these days.

The law is entirely socially posited. When we talk about legal sex/gender, we are talking about gender 100% of the time. That's why not--it's redundant and achieves nothing.

I'd say wokeness is very much not all the rage, given prevailing attitudes towards it. Which is another reason why this wouldn't get anywhere.

But if there were seperate sex and gender the two could be dealt with under the law in a manner that protected the sex segregation of male and female but provided additional protection and perhaps segregation for genders.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, that's already possible.

The question of how the genders would be segregated still exists. If there is no reference to biological sex then the definition of gender becomes entirely dependent on the internal assessment of each individual and the words man and woman become entirely social constructs and pretty much irrelevant.

The legal understanding of man and woman is already entirely socially constructed. It is impossible for it to be otherwise.

If you want the state to entirely defer to medical professionals in categorizing people by sex, you are delegating the legal power to define sex to medical professionals, and the inevitable consequence for any topic of public interest will be politicization of the medical profession.

 

[Samson]

Bravo!!

In NZ, an intimate partner (almost always a male) kills their intimate partner about once a week on average.



Also bravo!!

If I could, I'd cut the thread to just those two posts.



Ok, I admit I was wrong.

I credited you with more sense than you're showing.

Totally aced it, the actual women on the thread and their special pleading for physical safety are back in their box.

 

[Lplus]

The law is entirely socially posited. When we talk about legal sex/gender, we are talking about gender 100% of the time. That's why not--it's redundant and achieves nothing.

I disagree. On the basis that legal sexes are male and female, I tend to consider those to be biologically based and thus immutable. Or are you suggesting male and female are genders?

I'd say wokeness is very much not all the rage, given prevailing attitudes towards it. Which is another reason why this wouldn't get anywhere.

But it should be, shouldn't it?

As I've pointed out repeatedly, that's already possible.


The legal understanding of man and woman is already entirely socially constructed. It is impossible for it to be otherwise.

And now you use the words man and woman as opposed to male and female, yet man and woman are not the words used officially so the "legal" understanding of man and woman are irrelevent.

If you want the state to entirely defer to medical professionals in categorizing people by sex, you are delegating the legal power to define sex to medical professionals, and the inevitable consequence for any topic of public interest will be politicization of the medical profession.

Yep, I'm delegating the legal power to determine (not define)the sex of each individual to medical professionals who are in a position to make accurate determinations. The definition of the sexes male and female have already been long established by the medical profession.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Neither of which are actually on the topic of whether trans women are women.

Well again because this entire discussion distilled down to nothing but a "Do you have four fingers and a thumb or five fingers" and then thousands of posts and dozens, maybe hundreds at this point, of threads that are just "Okay everyone count your digits again" and everyone coming up with the same answer over and over because they are using different definitions. That's why there has been no motion and will not be any.

But the only thing (most) people in this thread are capable of is arguing via pretending the other person's definition of woman is unclear or hasn't been stated clearly enough.

People are correcting each other, not arguing or debating. Everything is just listening to an argument from a person using one definition and then making a counter argument using (g)your definition.

You don't have to agree that "woman" is a biological definition to understand that other people do and argue against the definition they are using or vice versa.

 

[Samson]

Well again because this entire discussion distilled down to nothing but a "Do you have four fingers and a thumb or five fingers" and then thousands of posts and dozens, maybe hundreds at this point, of threads that are just "Okay everyone count your digits again" and everyone coming up with the same answer over and over because they are using different definitions. That's why there has been no motion and will not be any.

But the only thing (most) people in this thread are capable of is arguing via pretending the other person's definition of woman is unclear or hasn't been stated clearly enough.

People are correcting each other, not arguing or debating. Everything is just listening to an argument from a person using one definition and then making a counter argument using (g)your definition.

You don't have to agree that "woman" is a biological definition to understand that other people do and argue against the definition they are using or vice versa.

Assuming the thread title is a fact, then occams razor says
Not in women's sport
Not in women's changing rooms
Not in women's refuges
Not in women's prisons
Not on lesbian dating sites.
It's not difficult.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want the state to entirely defer to medical professionals in categorizing people by sex, you are delegating the legal power to define sex to medical professionals, and the inevitable consequence for any topic of public interest will be politicization of the medical profession.

Trans activists have already politicized medicine. That's why we see organizations like the AAP make politically correct but factually wrong claims such as puberty blockers being reversible, with basically no pushback from the rest of the medical establishment.

 

[Lplus]

Well again because this entire discussion distilled down to nothing but a "Do you have four fingers and a thumb or five fingers" and then thousands of posts and dozens, maybe hundreds at this point, of threads that are just "Okay everyone count your digits again" and everyone coming up with the same answer over and over because they are using different definitions. That's why there has been no motion and will not be any.

But the only thing (most) people in this thread are capable of is arguing via pretending the other person's definition of woman is unclear or hasn't been stated clearly enough.

People are correcting each other, not arguing or debating. Everything is just listening to an argument from a person using one definition and then making a counter argument using (g)your definition.

You don't have to agree that "woman" is a biological definition to understand that other people do and argue against the definition they are using or vice versa.

Assuming the thread title is a fact, then occams razor says
Not in women's sport
Not in women's changing rooms
Not in women's refuges
Not in women's prisons
Not on lesbian dating sites.
It's not difficult.

Agreed - if the definition of the word "Woman" includes being "of the biological sex female" then the thread title is correct. If it doesn't then the thread title needs changing to "Transwomen are not female"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Multiple times across multiple threads related to this topic I've made the following suggestion.

Describe how we determine who goes in which bathroom and in which sporting demarcation BUT you can't use any of the following words. Man, woman, male, female, sex, gender, cis, or trans.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm unclear on what you think the problem is here.

Wait. You don't see a problem with incarcerating "someone with breasts and a vagina" in a men's prison? Really?