• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

Emily's Cat said:
But for now, digging in your heels on a definition that works great 99.9995% of the time seems a bit obstructionist. Either that, or you're trying to up your internet points?
Click to expand...
Indeed!

There is an argument gun-nuts make for not having firearms regulations to reduce the frequency of mass shootings, i.e. that if any measure, or combination of measures only lowers the risk or mass shootings, and doesn't give a 100%, cast-iron guarantee that it/they will prevent ALL mass shootings, then that/those measures must NOT be introduced.

This is called the "perfect is the enemy of good" argument, and its the same argument @d4m10n makes here!
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How can you claim to know this, now that they are classified as male for purposes of federal law?
Click to expand...
EOs are not federal law. They're instructions to executive branch agencies, for how to resolve disputes about gendered spaces, in federal facilities, facilities subject Title IX, etc.

CAIS has never been an issue in such disputes. I doubt very much it will be in the future.
 
Given the number of young women who fall under Title IX for various federal purposes, it strikes me as inevitable.
 
d4m10n said:
Given the number of young women who fall under Title IX for various federal purposes, it strikes me as inevitable.
Click to expand...
If it's inevitable, how come it hasn't been happening already? The EO doesn't create new disputes. It gives new instructions on how to handle the disputes that do arise. Whatever the disputes that may arise from CAIS individuals in women's restrooms, they should be arising already. But they aren't. Because CAIS individuals have never been a source of such disputes.
 
d4m10n said:
How can you claim to know this, now that they are classified as male for purposes of federal law?
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
EOs are not federal law. They're instructions to executive branch agencies, for how to resolve disputes about gendered spaces, in federal facilities, facilities subject Title IX, etc.
Click to expand...

Indeed! If EO's were "Federal Law" then Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (a.k.a. the Supremacy clause) would apply, and all 50 states would be forced to comply with the EO. They aren't, so it not!
 
d4m10n said:
Seems likes cruelty is trending up across the board, judging by how often I see people blaming their problems on unpopular minorities.

We'll see how it plays out.
Click to expand...
Recognizing that rules and laws should not accomodate a tiny minority if the result of doing so abrogates the rights of the vast and overwhelming majority, is not cruelty.... Its democracy.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Recognizing that rules and laws should not accomodate a tiny minority if the result of doing so abrogates the rights of the vast and overwhelming majority, is not cruelty.... Its democracy.
Click to expand...
That's a silly "if" given how easy it would've been to draft a loophole for genetic males who never experienced male puberty, had the drafters not been bent on doing science denialism by erasing the existence of intersex individuals from all federal policy.
 
Last edited:
Well, do that, and every boy who has not yet gone through puberty gets to access female-only spaces and race against the girls. Any boy who is put on puberty blockers early, ditto.

We're not discussing pre-puberty boys or puberty-blocked boys, we're discussing CAIS. What makes you think that when this is codified into actual law, this anomaly won't be accommodated within the definition of "sex at conception" which will have to be devised for such legislation?
 
Rolfe said:
Well, do that, and every boy who has not yet gone through puberty gets to access female-only spaces and race against the girls.
Click to expand...
My mistake not to specify those have not and cannot experience male puberty.
Rolfe said:
Any boy who is put on puberty blockers early, ditto.
Click to expand...
Do puberty blocked males pose a threat, either athletically or otherwise?
Rolfe said:
What makes you think that when this is codified into actual law, this anomaly won't be accommodated within the definition of "sex at conception" which will have to be devised for such legislation?
Click to expand...
The "actual law" was just filibustered, all that matters for now is the implementation of the EO.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Well, do that, and every boy who has not yet gone through puberty gets to access female-only spaces and race against the girls. Any boy who is put on puberty blockers early, ditto.

We're not discussing pre-puberty boys or puberty-blocked boys, we're discussing CAIS. What makes you think that when this is codified into actual law, this anomaly won't be accommodated within the definition of "sex at conception" which will have to be devised for such legislation?
Click to expand...
@d4m10n See how quickly @Rolfe found ways to exploit your loophole?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Seems likes cruelty is trending up across the board, judging by how often I see people blaming their problems on unpopular minorities.

We'll see how it plays out.
Click to expand...
What happened to "it's inevitable"?

d4m10n said:
That's a silly "if" given how easy it would've been to draft a loophole for genetic males who never experienced male puberty, had the drafters not been bent on doing science denialism by erasing the existence of intersex individuals from all federal policy.
Click to expand...
No. Not from all federal policy. From a specific scenario where a federal agent must resolve a dispute about access to gendered spaces that are under federal jurisdiction.
 
d4m10n said:
Do puberty blocked males pose a threat, either athletically or otherwise?
Click to expand...

They're male. Keep them out. All of them. Find somewhere else to put them. Not our problem to solve. (Maybe if it's clear that they will never be allowed into women's single-sex spaces, that particular form of child abuse might become less common.)
 
d4m10n said:
I think it is, but we shall see.

Wrong.
Click to expand...
Right. There's more to federal policy than just what's in an EO.
d4m10n said:
No, from any scenario where federal laws (e.g. Title IX) are already in force.
Click to expand...
No. Not any Title IX scenario. Only Title IX scenarios that have to do with disputes over access to gendered spaces and activities.

Somebody from a Title IX school complains to the regulators that they're not allowed to compete in women's sports. Per the EO, the regulators will inquire as to whether the complainant is a natal lady or a natal dude, and render judgement based on the result of that inquiry. That's the kind of scenario the EO addresses. You seem convinced that CAIS individuals are caught up in these kinds of scenarios all the time, and will inevitably task Title IX regulators with catch-22 complaints. I'm saying the debate about men in women's sports would be very different, if you were correct in your conviction.
 
Myriad said:
There was no syllogism and I pointed out exactly how the analogy fails.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is. And you're only pointing to your feet, to the article of faith that you're standing on.

Your definition basically -- at least from the view afforded by reputable biologists worth their salt -- turns tails into legs. Neither your wife nor great-nephew are likely to be doing any reproducing, at least in the near future in the latter case. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, so to speak, but those dogs aren't going to hunt -- tails arguably being necessary for the process while having virtually no value while touching the ground ...

Myriad said:
In any case, my wife remains female and my young great-nephew remains male, with not a viable gamete between them.
Click to expand...
By your rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definitions for the sexes. The dispute over which is the subject of this thread, from square one, and of Trump's EOs which more or less promulgate the biological standards.
 
Steersman said:
Yeah, there is. And you're only pointing to your feet, to the article of faith that you're standing on.

Your definition basically -- at least from the view afforded by reputable biologists worth their salt -- turns tails into legs. Neither your wife nor great-nephew are likely to be doing any reproducing, at least in the near future in the latter case. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, so to speak, but those dogs aren't going to hunt -- tails arguably being necessary for the process while having virtually no value while touching the ground ...


By your rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definitions for the sexes. The dispute over which is the subject of this thread, from square one, and of Trump's EOs which more or less promulgate the biological standards.
Click to expand...

And yet, my wife remains female and my young great-nephew remains male, with not a viable gamete between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom