Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Steersman]

Then from the perspective of the trans activists, you're a transphobe.

Welcome to our side.

Thanks.

Though as something of a quibble, you haven't always recognized that

You want to change it because YOU want to pander to the vanities of the poor dears and delicate souls who would otherwise be devastated at not being able to flaunt their lady dicks in the women's locker room.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13901214&postcount=9

Nice change though.

I have no idea what you specifically mean by gender. What the trans activists mean by it seems pretty decoupled from biology. But I don't think they have a really coherent definition, so... not really saying much.

Gender is a bit of a dog's breakfast from square one. But there's something of a significant difference between gender - which basically boils down into personalities - and gender identity - which is mostly incoherent twaddle, little more than the "merging of science, magic and religion", and precious little if any science:

https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430

But for an elaboration on that difference, you might check out a fairly decent, if somewhat flawed post at Quillette by philosopher Michael Robillard on The Incoherence of Gender Ideology:

https://archive.ph/4e2n0

 

[stanfr]

You brought it up, and stanfr went for it whole hog. It's kind of funny how being "on the fence" somehow results in falling into every TRA trope and dodge seen so far in this thread.

LOL, you must have forgotten one of my earliest posts where i said I was comfortable playing devil's advocate. Being on the fence allows me to see both yards--being on one side or the other cuts off your view of the other side.

You also have forgotten that If pressed I would agree that self-ID alone is not necessarily a good idea, and I have repeatedly said that at this point in time I am not convinced that biological males should be allowed to compete against women.

I brought up Semenya cause Rolfe repeatedly claimed it was super simple to determine sex, and yet she concedes that a "mistake" was made in her case.

I've read all of her links...some of them have valid points and some (as even she seems to recognize) seem sensationalist and agenda-driven to me.

Take a glance at this article in SA--am I safe to assume that you disagree with its conclusions? If you can't be troubled to do the 2 minute read, cut to the last paragraph conclusion:

Sex is....interesting

 

[Matthew Best]

Take a glance at this article in SA--am I safe to assume that you disagree with its conclusions? If you can't be troubled to do the 2 minute read, cut to the last paragraph conclusion:

Sex is....interesting

That's a fascinating article, but it seems to be off-topic for this thread, and there is already a thread specifically set up for discussion of DSDs.

 

[Steersman]

That's a fascinating article, but it seems to be off-topic for this thread, and there is already a thread specifically set up for discussion of DSDs.

Think it's a bit of an old chestnut that TRAs and their fellow-travelers have frequent recourse to ... Though the closing paragraph may have some relevance to the OP:

So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ [Link should open and give full access in an incognito window]

Though there is maybe some merit in the idea that sex itself is not a particularly useful criteria for controlling access to toilets, change rooms, and sports.

But you might be interested in something of a more or less credible rebuttal at The Weekly Worker - Decoupled from Reality (indeed) - by Amanda MacLean:

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1247/decoupled-from-reality/

Also of some note is a tweet by the author of the SA/Nature article - Claire Ainsworth - more or less repudiating the claim of SA & Nature that sex is a spectrum:

https://twitter.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680

 

[Elaedith]

LOL, you must have forgotten one of my earliest posts where i said I was comfortable playing devil's advocate. Being on the fence allows me to see both yards--being on one side or the other cuts off your view of the other side.

You also have forgotten that If pressed I would agree that self-ID alone is not necessarily a good idea, and I have repeatedly said that at this point in time I am not convinced that biological males should be allowed to compete against women.

I brought up Semenya cause Rolfe repeatedly claimed it was super simple to determine sex, and yet she concedes that a "mistake" was made in her case.

I've read all of her links...some of them have valid points and some (as even she seems to recognize) seem sensationalist and agenda-driven to me.

Take a glance at this article in SA--am I safe to assume that you disagree with its conclusions? If you can't be troubled to do the 2 minute read, cut to the last paragraph conclusion:

Sex is....interesting

This article has already been refuted multiple times*. If there is one thing you can be sure of, it's that this will be brought up (another one called 'stop using phony science to justify transphobia' is also bound to come up). The reason you are getting negative reactions is because you are recycling activist dogma in a manner that comes across as assuming that nobody has ever considered these easily-refuted points.

In fact, the contents of that article should alert you to the fact of ideological capture. There is no 'new science' in it. It is an attempt to repackage facts we have known for decades to fit a new political agenda.

'Intersex' conditions have nothing to do with transgender identity (except that they are exploited as part of the same sex denialist movement) and there is another thread for detailed discussion of these.

*I don't mean the facts in the article are wrong - it's the implication that this somehow 'deconstructs' sex that is ideological

 

[Rolfe]

I brought up Semenya cause Rolfe repeatedly claimed it was super simple to determine sex, and yet she concedes that a "mistake" was made in her case.

It is super simple to determine sex. In 45 years in veterinary medicine, although I came across animals with what human medics would call DSDs from time to time, I never encountered one where I couldn't tell if it was male or female.

If you're a village midwife in Soweto, just eyeballing a baby looking to see if external male genitalia are present or not, yes, mistake. Why do you think we aren't seeing people like Semenya in societies where neonatal care is better than useless? Because it's not that hard to get it right when you know what you're looking at to the point of saying, something a bit anomalous about this, better do some checks. A boy with 5ARD will be identified as a boy with no problem in a developed society.

Erik Schinneger was born in 1948. We've come a very long way since then. Where are the Erik Schinnegers of the west now? Growing up as boys with their DSD diagnosed in infancy, that's where.

You're looking at the 0.017% of human infants where the simple eyeball test isn't enough and a wee bit more investigation is needed to make sure, and saying sex is difficult to determine? Gimme a break.

However, Matthew is right. This is off-topic. Trans activists so frequently drag in the red herring of DSDs to this thread I sometimes forget which one I'm posting in. Transwomen, the actual topic of the thread, are 100% of them phenotypically and genotypically normal males, to any reasonable level of rounding accuracy.

 

[Rolfe]

The one I feel sorry for most is Melissa Bishop, Canadian 800m runner.

Clearly the best female 800m runner in the world in 2016, but had the misfortune to run at the Rio Olympics when three blokes were allowed to run as women, and in a shock to absolutely nobody, finished fourth behind the three men.

She should be awarded a gold medal. That Semenya has it is a travesty.

This is why I have trouble wishing Semenya well. I think he knew all along. Although my ire is mostly reserved for all the officials who perpetrated this outrage, and the ones who sat on their hands and refused to do anything about it.

Sharron Davies is very vocal about all this because she lost gold medals in the 1980s to women who were doped up on testosterone. She believes her entire generation of female swimmers lost out to the East German cheating machine, and again the authorities sat on their hands and did nothing because they didn't want an international incident.

We know that however much testosterone you give a woman she'll never reach élite levels in male sport. How much worse now to force women to compete against actual men.

 

[theprestige]

LOL, you must have forgotten one of my earliest posts where i said I was comfortable playing devil's advocate. Being on the fence allows me to see both yards--being on one side or the other cuts off your view of the other side.

You also have forgotten that If pressed I would agree that self-ID alone is not necessarily a good idea, and I have repeatedly said that at this point in time I am not convinced that biological males should be allowed to compete against women.

I brought up Semenya cause Rolfe repeatedly claimed it was super simple to determine sex, and yet she concedes that a "mistake" was made in her case.

I've read all of her links...some of them have valid points and some (as even she seems to recognize) seem sensationalist and agenda-driven to me.

Take a glance at this article in SA--am I safe to assume that you disagree with its conclusions? If you can't be troubled to do the 2 minute read, cut to the last paragraph conclusion:

Sex is....interesting

The whole thing is a sidetrack, really. I'm not here to engage your Devil's advocacy on the ease of observing someone's sex, or the relative significance of edge cases not actually relevant to the questions I have.

The questions I have being these:

1. To what degree should transwomen be entitled to access sex-segregated spaces for women?

2. On on what basis, if any, should such access be granted?

At the start of this thread, the space I mainly had in mind was women's restrooms, and I didn't really think of it as "sex-segregated". My answers to my two questions would have been:

1. "Total access [to women's restrooms]."

2. "On the basis of self-ID, however I would like to know how we can enable self-ID without allowing predatory males to exploit it, and without having to implement some sort official paperwork ID instead."

Nowadays, my thinking about all that has changed quite a bit, for reasons belabored at length and in depth in this thread. And I still haven't seen even any kind of attempt at addressing my concern in question 2.

If you have answers or arguments relating to those two questions, I'm happy to continue our conversation along those lines. Especially if you have an answer for my concern in question 2.

Otherwise, if you're still on the fence and inclined to more Devil's advocacy, try this one from the other side of the fence: The stipulated position is that fiat self-ID should be the basis for trans access to sex-segregated spaces, and that any kind of "papers please" solution is right out. I'd be interested in seeing your counter-argument to that position, playing the Devil's advocate.

ETA: I'd also very much like to see your reasoning for your claim that it is easier to determine someone's date of birth than their sex.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. As an answer to these questions, the reply "but in 0.017% of births it's necessary to do extra tests to find out if the baby is a boy or a girl!" doesn't really seem to address the issue.

 

[d4m10n]

That's a fascinating article, but it seems to be off-topic for this thread, and there is already a thread specifically set up for discussion of DSDs.

Dodging straightforward questions like "Where should Lia Thomas compete?" or "Is Martine Rothblatt really a female CEO?" by talking about DSDs is so common that it should have a name. Imma call it "DSDodging" until someone coins a better term.

 

[Rolfe]

Vote to adopt.

 

[Rolfe]

Thinking about the birth date versus ambiguous genitalia thing, I suspect it's commoner to have a birth so close to midnight it's a toss-up which side the baby actually came out than to have a baby where visual inspection doesn't allow a correct determination of sex.

However, since people correctly sex other people 97% of the time even with no clothing clues and with hair covered, whereas it is literally impossible to guess anyone's exact age let alone date of birth just by looking at them, I'm going out on a limb here and saying that keeping men out of women's spaces is a damn sight easier than preventing minors from buying alcohol or ensuring that only the over 60s get the concession price on the bus ticket.

 

[theprestige]

Say I'm the gatekeeper at an adults-only, women-only establishment. A young man wants in. Well, I say a young man, but what do I know? I still need to figure out his sex and his date of birth. Which one is going to be easier?

As far as I can tell, it's always going to be easier to determine his sex. In most cases, the indicative sexual dimorphism will be clear.

In some cases, a motivated man, given a genetic head start, time to prepare, favorable conditions, and a willing audience, can successfully pass as a woman. That man could conceivably fool the gatekeeper, and as long as they were able to keep up the pretense within the establishment, would probably be fine on a "no harm, no foul; ignorance is bliss" basis. Can't be intolerant of that which is tolerable by definition.

But even in that case, it would still be much easier to determine the applicant's sex than their date of birth. The necessary inspection would perhaps be too intrusive for our comfort, but it would quickly reveal observable facts about their phenotype.

In some very rare edge cases, even the observable phenotype would be ambiguous, and we'd have to resort to some kind of genetic testing or whatever. But even then, the sex is printed in the tissue, down to the cellular level.

The applicant's date of birth, however, is printed nowhere. Not on their skin. Not on their secondary sexual organs. Not on their primary sexual organs. Not on their cells. The only place their DOB is printed is on their government ID. And even that is not guaranteed to be accurate. Their sex is also printed on their ID, but if the government gets that wrong we can still observe the correct value for that field.

 

[Rolfe]

You know how, in the autumn when the clocks go back, we have the hour from 2am till 3 am twice? You could have two babies born that night, one of which was born first but has a birth time of 2.45 and the other born half an hour later but with the birth time of 2.15.

/off topic

 

[Rolfe]

Say I'm the gatekeeper at an adults-only, women-only establishment. A young man wants in. Well, I say a young man, but what do I know? I still need to figure out his sex and his date of birth. Which one is going to be easier?

As far as I can tell, it's always going to be easier to determine his sex. In most cases, the indicative sexual dimorphism will be clear.

In some cases, a motivated man, given a genetic head start, time to prepare, favorable conditions, and a willing audience, can successfully pass as a woman. That man could conceivably fool the gatekeeper, and as long as they were able to keep up the pretense within the establishment, would probably be fine on a "no harm, no foul; ignorance is bliss" basis. Can't be intolerant of that which is tolerable by definition.

But even in that case, it would still be much easier to determine the applicant's sex than their date of birth. The necessary inspection would perhaps be too intrusive for our comfort, but it would quickly reveal observable facts about their phenotype.

In some very rare edge cases, even the observable phenotype would be ambiguous, and we'd have to resort to some kind of genetic testing or whatever. But even then, the sex is printed in the tissue, down to the cellular level.

The applicant's date of birth, however, is printed nowhere. Not on their skin. Not on their secondary sexual organs. Not on their primary sexual organs. Not on their cells. The only place their DOB is printed is on their government ID. And even that is not guaranteed to be accurate. Their sex is also printed on their ID, but if the government gets that wrong we can still observe the correct value for that field.

There's a reason teenagers and people in their sixties need to carry ID with their age or date of birth on it to be able to access services they are entitled to access.

Until this trans nonsense started nobody ever thought we needed ID to prove which sex we were.

 

[Paul2]

LOL, you must have forgotten one of my earliest posts where i said I was comfortable playing devil's advocate. Being on the fence allows me to see both yards--being on one side or the other cuts off your view of the other side.

You also have forgotten that If pressed I would agree that self-ID alone is not necessarily a good idea, and I have repeatedly said that at this point in time I am not convinced that biological males should be allowed to compete against women.

I brought up Semenya cause Rolfe repeatedly claimed it was super simple to determine sex, and yet she concedes that a "mistake" was made in her case.

I've read all of her links...some of them have valid points and some (as even she seems to recognize) seem sensationalist and agenda-driven to me.

Take a glance at this article in SA--am I safe to assume that you disagree with its conclusions? If you can't be troubled to do the 2 minute read, cut to the last paragraph conclusion:

Sex is....interesting

I missed the logical connection between the difficult cases that blur the dichotomy and the point in the concluding paragraph that therefore we might try just asking people.

 

[Vixen]

There is an equivalent offence of "assault by penetration" which women can be charged with, and which carries exactly the same penalties as rape. So if you refer to sexual assault charges, you'll scoop up both categories.

Women have very occasionally been convicted of rape, as accessories to a male rapist. For example if a woman restrained the victim while a man raped her (or him), she could be charged with rape.

However this is pretty rare, and if you see statistics in Britain including "women" or "females" convicted of rape, it's a pretty safe bet these are actually men with identity issues.

It might be 'rare' for a female to be charged with sexual assault (I don't think it is rare, more uncommon) but that doesn't mean women do not make unwanted sexual advances on men. I had a work colleague who was constantly bragging about her predatory behaviour. For example how when the IT guy was rummaging around under her desk with cables, she got down there with him. At work networking events she was constantly busy trying to get lawyer types to bed her, married or unmarried. If a guy behaved like that it would have been disapproved of.

I am not convinced that transgender women are any more prone to sex crimes outwith the usual sort of person we expect to see in the criminal classes.

 

[theprestige]

It might be 'rare' for a female to be charged with sexual assault (I don't think it is rare, more uncommon) but that doesn't mean women do not make unwanted sexual advances on men. I had a work colleague who was constantly bragging about her predatory behaviour. For example how when the IT guy was rummaging around under her desk with cables, she got down there with him. At work networking events she was constantly busy trying to get lawyer types to bed her, married or unmarried. If a guy behaved like that it would have been disapproved of.

I am not convinced that transgender women are any more prone to sex crimes outwith the usual sort of person we expect to see in the criminal classes.

We have stats on sex crimes committed by convicted criminals.

 

[Vixen]

Holy cow, really? Females shouldn't be expected to set themselves on fire in order to keep poor Marjolein warm. There are other solutions available that protect Marjolein while ALSO not putting any else at risk. But you're happy to pick a solution that protects Marjolein AND makes them happy... and you just willfullly ignore the several females who are made unhappy and placed at increased risk.

You clearly value Marjolein's happiness more than you give a **** about the happiness, safety, and dignity of many females.

I know this is a futile point but I was rather asking why anyone would take seriously a gutter-press tabloid newspaper which thrives on click bait using obviously hate-fueled headlines such as '31-YEAR-OLD GOALKEEPER WHO USED TO PLAY FOR [insert well known men's football team here] NOW DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY TO SHARE CHANGING ROOMS WITH 15-YEAR-OLD GIRLS!!!'

Especially when further down in the utter bilge article the hack has to grudging include the sentence that actually SHE IS NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY WITH UNDER 21's BECAUSE OF HER AGE. But you didn't spot that giveaway that the entire article was a scandalous lascivious attempt to paint Marjolein as a paedophile pervert.

But then you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Vixen]

Except that Marjolein is NOT female - Marjolein is male. Furthermore, Marjolein is a 30+ year old male, who is sharing a changing room with minor females, Marjolein's dick and balls notwithstanding.

Marjolein has had extensive surgery in her long journey to realise her true self. Are you sure you actually read the article or did you simply start exploding with rage as soon as you read the provocative headline?

You must be in a permanent state of incandescent apolexia at all the similar headlines such as, 'UNMARRIED MOTHERS DELIBERATELY HAVE BABIES TO GET SOCIAL HOUSING AND JUMP THE QUEUE' or, 'ALL THESE IMMIGRANTS GETTING 27-ROOM MANSIONS FOR THEIR 14-CHILDREN FAMILIES AND £27,000 ON BENEFITS!!!'

Might I suggest you become a bit more critical about your reading matter and then you won't be at the mercies and whims of the permanently enraged?