Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

acbytesla said:
Scientists just discovered a woman who's blood cells are all XY. Is she a he?
Click to expand...
The debate about trans privileges in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about people with edge case blood cells.

Tell us what the policy should be, for men who demand access to women's spaces whether women like it or not. Then we can talk about blood cells and whatever else you pretend is so important to trans privileges in public policy.
 
theprestige said:
The debate about trans privileges in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about people with edge case blood cells.

Tell us what the policy should be, for men who demand access to women's spaces whether women like it or not. Then we can talk about blood cells and whatever else you pretend is so important to trans privileges in public policy.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address the question. Which bathroom should ""she, he, it" be using? What public policy addresses this person?
 
acbytesla said:
That doesn't address the question. Which bathroom should ""she, he, it" be using? What public policy addresses this person?
Click to expand...
Again, the debate about trans rights privileges in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about this issue. You can't even deal with the central case, which is why you want to create a distraction to an extreme edge case.

What public policy would you suggest, that keeps males out of female spaces, but accommodates this edge case?
 
acbytesla said:
Scientists just discovered a woman who's whose blood cells that are all XY. Is she a he?
Click to expand...

Actually, what a weird way to frame this question. "Scientists just discovered"? We all know about the conditions that result in individuals with an XY chromosome complement turning out female. We've discussed them at some length in the thread already, probably several times. "Scientists" didn't "just discover" Swyer's syndrome, to give just one example. It's well recognised. So is CAIS. So are various mosaicism conditions.

Women with XY chromosomes are women. End of argument. Unless you're so stuck in high-school level biology that you think XY always equals male and XX always equals female. And surely nobody, this far into this thread, can possibly be so ignorant. Surely?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Again, the debate about trans rights privileges in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about this issue. You can't even deal with the central case, which is why you want to create a distraction to an extreme edge case.

What public policy would you suggest, that keeps males out of female spaces, but accommodates this edge case?
Click to expand...

It isn't even an edge case. It's Swyer's syndrome. Nobody in the entire wide world is arguing for women with Swyer's syndrome to go in the men's toilets.

I know some extremely hard-line feminists want to classify women with CAIS as men, but that's a lost cause. Now that we're seeing sporting bodies take a good hard look at this, because they know they have to legislate for the edge-case DSD individuals as well as keeping the actual men out, we find unsurprisingly that their criteria are exactly as I outlined several iterations of this thread ago. If you have both a functional SRY gene and functioning androgen receptors, you're male. If you have (typically) no functional SRY gene, or (rarely) no functioning androgen receptors, you're female. That's for eligibility to compete in sporting events, but it aligns pretty perfectly with the actualite.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Scientists just discovered a woman who's blood cells that are all XY. Is she a he?
Click to expand...
You think you found a gotcha and you've rushed over to this thread to stick it to those you think are tranny-bashers?
We'll I have bad news for you. In this case 'scientists' have not discovered some previously undiscovered edge case. As @Rolfe has pointed out, this is just a case of Swyer's syndrome, a well known, well understood DSD.

If you got this report from one of those trans-advocacy echo chambers (and I'm guessing you did since you didn't post a link to back up your claim) then they are lying to you.

acbytesla said:
That doesn't address the question. Which bathroom should ""she, he, it" be using? What public policy addresses this person?
Click to expand...
It's not even a relevant question? Even if this was some edge case, such cases can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Edge cases make bad law when applied to wider laws governing the general public. If you make laws to accommodate 0.0018% of the population at the expense of the other 99.9982%, that would be the very definition of bad law.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You appear wedded to this personal fantasy of yours that you have found a "gotcha" loophole in the law.
Click to expand...
I have not yet made any claims about what the EA 2010 requires of services who are attempting to mix cisgender people of one birth sex with transgender people of another; I have thus far only expressed skepticism of those who claim that UK law henceforth forbids it based on the most recent ruling.

If the law actually forbids it, show me where it does.
 
Last edited:
If you can't define it, how do you regulate it? Are their exceptions for intersex people? And what Intersex conditions qualify? Is every person who has a penis a man? Is every person with a vagina a woman? What if they have both? Or do we define by hormone levels like they do in certain sports? Or do we define by chromosomes? What if your skin, teeth have XX chromosomes and your blood has XY chromosomes?
 
Trausti said:
Yes. How has society gotten so stupid that this could even be a question?
Click to expand...
It's not stupidity, at all. It's far more accurate than pretty much everything found in the Bible. And the vast majority of Americans believe in that crap.
Trausti said:
No one does. No person can get themselves pregnant. We are mammals. No amount of emotive flimflam will change that.
Click to expand...
So? You do know that lots of women with vaginas can't give birth.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
It's not stupidity, at all. It's far more accurate than pretty much everything found in the Bible. And the vast majority of Americans believe in that crap.

So? You do know that lots of women with vaginas can't give birth.
Click to expand...
The Bible has nothing to do with this. The purpose of sex is procreation. Mammals - THAT'S US - procreate with a female (large gametes) and male (small gametes). That's just the way it is. A BINARY. You don't have to like it, but it's far more preferably to deal with reality than live in the world of make believe. And no person, not one out of the billions, has ever - EVER - changed their sex. It is not possible. Because no mammal can do that. To say some women with vaginas cannot give birth is incredibly irrelevant. Because some people cannot walk, humans are not bipedal.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Still haven't answered the question. Is she a he? Or is he a she?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered... by you in your initial post...

But if you really need to see it laid out scientifically for you..

Lines 15 and 16 describe the details of Swyer Syndrome (which is what your so-called "newly discovered by scientists" subject is suffering from).
Since this DSD appears in the right hand chart, your subject is a biological female, therefore a woman.

DSD-MvF-ref.jpg
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
If you can't define it, how do you regulate it? Are their exceptions for intersex people? And what Intersex conditions qualify? Is every person who has a penis a man? Is every person with a vagina a woman? What if they have both? Or do we define by hormone levels like they do in certain sports? Or do we define by chromosomes? What if your skin, teeth have XX chromosomes and your blood has XY chromosomes?
Click to expand...
You also keep using the term "intersex" - but medical science no longer uses that term

However, I can perfectly understand why trans-advocates are so desperate to keep using it... so they can deceitfully insert it into their arguments to try passing it off as meaning a person is somehow between sexes or a third sex.

1. Intersex DOES NOT MEAN BETWEEN SEXES !
2. Intersex IS NOT A THIRD SEX !

The term "intersex" was replaced for precisely the reason that it is misleading. It was replaced by DSD (Disorders of Sexual Development).

EVERY PERSON, without exception, who has a DSD is either Biologically Male or Biologically Female... THERE . ARE . NO . EXCEPTIONS !!

And yes, I'm well aware that the usual suspects will pop their heads up with the usual bollocks about "CAIS and PAIS". Regardless, those cases are STILL either female or male... they are NOT a third sex!!
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
The Bible has nothing to do with this. The purpose of sex is procreation. Mammals - THAT'S US - procreate with a female (large gametes) and male (small gametes). That's just the way it is. A BINARY. You don't have to like it, but it's far more preferably to deal with reality than live in the world of make believe. And no person, not one out of the billions, has ever - EVER - changed their sex. It is not possible. Because no mammal can do that. To say some women with vaginas cannot give birth is incredibly irrelevant. Because some people cannot walk, humans are not bipedal.
Click to expand...
Of course it has something to do with it. It is the foundation for the hate that many have regarding sexuality outside their comfort zone.

But regardless, you asked "How has society gotten so stupid that this could even be a question?" I can think of an innumerable number of examples of our society and others that were far more stupid. Such as, how did society ever get so stupid to believe in the Bible?

The Bible has done and continues to do more damage on society than transgender individuals have ever done. Should we outlaw churches?

There have been many societies throughout history that have had more than two genders. Gender is a social construction as are laws and regulations. If we are to create such laws and regulations, we must define terms.
 
smartcooky said:
And? ... Lots of men with dicks can't father children.
Click to expand...
True.
smartcooky said:
Asked and answered... by you in your initial post...

But if you really need to see it laid out scientifically for you..

Lines 15 and 16 describe the details of Swyer Syndrome (which is what your so-called "newly discovered by scientists" subject is suffering from).
Since this DSD appears in the right hand chart, your subject is a biological female, therefore a woman.

DSD-MvF-ref.jpg
Click to expand...
Do we pull out the chart in the bathroom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom