I think you have threads mixed up. The title of this thread is Transwomen women? I've already agreed for competition sake, it is best that we should use a biological sex marker to segregate men's and women's sports. I'm merely pointing out this far more nuanced than the average Joe wants to think.
That's the whole shebang: it's *not* more nuanced. Its pretty much a black and white gig. Trying to shoehorn nuance in is exactly the problem.
Are you saying body chemistry is not involved? Do females produce more estrogen than men? Do males produce more testosterone? If you said yes to either of these questions you would be wrong. You could only say "generally."
That's your problem. Because biology disagrees with you.
So you think that has nothing to do with their biological development?
When "generally" hits that sweet spot of 99+%, its the rule. The outlier cases don't determine the rule.
Doesn't matter. Body chemistry affects mood and a host of other traits, but doesn't alter the M/F determination. It just shows what flavor of M/F one is.
So what? There are still millions that don't fit into your box. If the majority wants to oppress a minority, is that ok?
It doesn't matter? Male female determination is an arbitrary label we use for biological traits that include body chemistry.
The OP of this thread was specifically about transwomen in women's sports. The ongoing debate about trans rights in public policy arose from that issue. The place for your biological nuance is the other thread. Here, everything is pretty much cut and dried, as far as policy goes. Your attempt at nuance creates confusion where none need exist. It's also often a hallmark of people who want to use that confusion to transcend sex segregation in women's sports, prisons, and other spaces. If that's not where you're going with this, then consider taking it to the "strict definitions" thread.
Agreed. They just don't alter your sex, nor put it on some "nuanced spectrum".
Repress? Yours truly is a fan of accommidating them in any reasonable way.
I was just responding to the title. But I am not trying to cause confusion, I'm trying to get people to stop looking myopically at reality. What I see over and over is naive realism at play. Egocentricsm is natural and a tendency we should fight against.
"Them?"
What's myopic about separating sports and prisons by binary sex, as a matter of policy?
That's a box, a category, a label which organisms don't fit as neatly into as you would like. How do you define a male? Tell us. And what do you do when the organism doesn't fit that definition perfectly?
Utter bollocks. This is TRA talking-point pseudo-science.
This is naively a over-simplistic.
Its doesn't matter how perfectly you fit. There are TWO and only TWO sexes. Sex is NOT on a spectrum.
I didn't say it was. I'm just saying it isn't easy and is ultimately subjective to a certain degree.
I do. But let's not pretend anything about this is simplistic.
Do you think a sex marker which indicates "biological male" should be sufficient to keep individuals like these out of my daughter's rest rooms and changing rooms?
Us? Seriously? Look around you. Who else is on team "us" in this discussion?
Yes, when referring to a group being discussed, it is perfecrly appropriate to use "them" as a third person pronoun.
