IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 20th December 2020, 07:39 PM   #121
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,949
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
The transsexual sports debate has really forced advocates to confront the equivocation of I feel like a woman to I'm an actual real 100 percent genuine woman because I feel like a woman.
I think we should ask Shania Twain, "What does it mean to feel like a woman?"

She should be able to tell us. If she tries to obfuscate with some talk of qualia we would be able to pin her down and say, "Ah, but if qualia is your defence then how do you know that other women feel as you do?"
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 07:40 PM   #122
Dismember
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
Exactly. It doesn't surprise me that someone with such transphobic views would support conversion therapy for us to "fix" us.
You, and TRAs, are being disingenuous here with the term “conversion therapy”.

Spending some time with a neutral therapist for the purpose of exploring other possible reasons for dysphoria and considering if there are other, less invasive effective treatments before jumping straight to drugs and an operating table is NOT “conversion therapy”.

It bears zero resemblance to actual conversion therapy inflicted on the gay/lesbian population.
__________________
"There are obviously those who don't want the truth exposed." -- Judy Byington, LCSW, author of Satanic Ritual Abuse "biography" Twenty-Two Faces
Dismember is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 08:01 PM   #123
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,745
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because then you don't accept trans-women as "REAL WOMEN (Trademark, Patent Pending)" and that's a problem.

But again the more we discuss this the less I know what anyone involved actually wants.
Maybe you missed it. I don't and it's not a problem.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 20th December 2020 at 08:12 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 08:06 PM   #124
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,851
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Maybe you missed it. I don't and it's not a problem.
Well then maybe you'll be nice enough to explain it to me then.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 08:38 PM   #125
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,745
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well then maybe you'll be nice enough to explain it to me then.
Explain what?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 08:50 PM   #126
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,059
Originally Posted by Dismember View Post
It bears zero resemblance to actual conversion therapy inflicted on the gay/lesbian population.
If a therapist said to a lesbian "Have you considered trying to accept yourself just as you are at present?" that would be very nearly the precise opposite of conversion therapy.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 02:17 AM   #127
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,602
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
I'm sorry if I sound a bit slow. I'm just trying to understand. I promise not to make this a huge derail.

Why would the 16-year-olds be in the same league as the women in this hypothetical? The whole idea of skill leagues would be to make things more fair. So if a transwoman comes along who is wiping the floor with the cis-women, she'd go in a different league. Maybe said league would wind up consisting mostly of transpeople? (I'm assuming that long-term estrogen usage would lessen a transwoman's innate male strength.)

If I'm way off in my understanding of this, I apologize.
Not a huge derail.

Tennis is probably the best example. The Williams sisters have practiced against men (and lost comprehensively) to men ranked 500+.

A "skills based" approach would see no females in the top tournaments at all, and maybe playing in 3rd or 4th tier events.

The male advantages come primarily from puberty and persist even if testosterone levels are later suppressed.

td;dr a skills based approach would exclude women from professional tennis completely. I don't think that would be a good idea for players or spectators. YVMV.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 03:09 AM   #128
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That doesn’t actually follow from anything I said. Nice try, and thanks for proving you don’t actually have an argument.
It actually follows directly from what you said.

Transwomen don't have the experience of the threat of being involuntarily impregnated. You raised this as an important difference and a reason for not allowing them to represent women.

Infertile women lack exactly this same threat.

If the lack of this threat is reason to exclude a transwoman it is also reason to exclude an infertile woman.

Of course you don't like that idea so you pretend it doesn't. But that's only because you are prejudiced against transpeople. Which is evident from all of your posts here.

You don't actually have an argument all you have is 'I don't like it and I'm gonna keep moaning about it'
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 03:11 AM   #129
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Then transition is a decision many trans choose to make. Unlike what you posted before.

Thanks.
Transitioning is a decision many trans choose to make, being trans is not. Read the words (and the authors of the words) closely, think about them, then respond. That order makes things better for everyone.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 03:23 AM   #130
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
First, one quick note about the binary: anything outside of the binary of two different sexes based on the type of gamete isn't even the type of thing that we're talking about in this thread anyway. Your garden-variety trans person still has one of the two types of gametes in the bimodal distribution.

Discrimination: I think you have to mean unjust or immoral discrimination, correct? Because a neutral discrimination - that there exist in reality two different sexes, based on the type of gamete - is not unjust or immoral, it just is. Thinking otherwise is a category mistake. Given that, there is nothing unjust or immoral in acknowledging the reality of two different sexes based on the type of gamete. That some might use the fact of two sexes to discriminate lies with them, not with the fact.

I'm not sure what significance "biological reductionism" has, given the above, other than as a faint pejorative.

It's a separate question as to what we do with the fact of two sexes based on the type of gamete. All I've been trying to do here is to justify that two sexes based on gametes *is* a fact of biology, and an absolutely foundational one at that.
I think you may have missed my point. I'm not trying to challenge your binary. I'm not sure I accept it fully but I'll go with it for now.

What I am saying is that if your definition of biological sex is only about which gametes people produce then it has no relevance to anything outside of reproduction.

So unless you want to make offspring with someone then their status as trans or cis, male or female shouldn't be an issue.

So why on earth would you want to deny someone access to a bathroom based on their gametes?

The only justfications for these social exclusions are based on all the stuff you threw away in order to come up with a nice binary definition of biological sex.

Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
Do you mean implicitly, explicitly, or both?
Both, I think. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your question.

Let's take an example of workplace sexism... women not being listened to in meetings. Nothing to do with their gametes.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 03:25 AM   #131
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
She still wasn't though. You can't tell me that a woman who had been a man just 4 months earlier was one of the top 25 women of the year. I think the magazine that voted her one of the entertainers of the year got it right. E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.E.R. That would exclude her role on KUWTK where she just wandered around in the background with nothing to do.

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.
She didn't take any resources allotted to women.

It was a freaking GLAMOUR magazine madey uppy title. Had they wanted to give another woman an award they could easily have made 26 of them.

Your opinion on whether she deserved the award is neither here nor there. Glamour Magazine felt she did.

Moaning about it just makes you seem silly.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 03:27 AM   #132
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments
Not sure on 5. I think puberty blockers would have to be given before puberty or are you not counting them as physical medical treatments?

Other than that isn't that pretty much what exists currently and would still exist with self-determination?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 03:29 AM   #133
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight? The only one I can think of is straight women as sexual partners, and I'm pretty sure gay men aren't taking those away from straight men.
So they are taking resources allotted to women in your opinion then?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 04:28 AM   #134
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well yeah which, in my opinion, makes it (nearly) a totally separate issue from things like bathroom/locker room access, legal recognition, etc.

With sports the answer has to be "What people are willing to pay to watch to see" or this is all so much a trolley problem it's so detached from reality.
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It seems to me that when it comes to professional sports, making sports fans happy seems to be the entire point of the exercise.
I'm going to put these two together as they seem to express a similar view.

I'm sympathetic to the view that there are specific issues related to sports that need to be considered but the responsibilities of sports goes beyond just what people want to see.

When Kaepernick was taking a knee sports had a responsibility to the players and society not to hang him out to dry regardless of whether paying fans wanted him lynched or sainted.

When we have soccer teams here in the UK and elsewhere who have fans singing about being up to their knees in Catholic blood and STILL making monkey noises and other racist chants at black players then no I am not prepared to allow them to be the sole arbiters of what is OK and what is not OK in terms of discrimination and bigotry.

Other commercial operations have to operate within a societally imposed framework of anti-discrimination legislation and sports should be no different.

Equally we need to be careful that policing women's sport doesn't simply become an exercise in people deciding who is sufficiently 'feminine' for their personal tastes. There has been more than 1 case of 100% no bones about it ciswomen being accused of being men simply because they don't meet someone's standard of femininity. That sort of crap is just flat out BS.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:03 AM   #135
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,919
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
So they are taking resources allotted to women in your opinion then?
That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. You can have an opinion on whether that’s good or bad, but that it happens isn’t a matter of opinion.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:15 AM   #136
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In spectator sports, you don't have competitions for "athletes that aren't good enough to be on the top pro teams." The closest anyone comes to that are baseball's minor leagues. They only exist as a training ground for potential major league players someday, and to provide casual, low cost entertainment. And to the best of my knowledge, no woman has every competed in the minor league baseball.
I don't know what the grassroots structures are for US sports in detail but can speak with certainty on soccer in most countries around the world absolutely having leagues and competitions for 'athletes that aren't good enough to be on the top pro teams'

Here's the English system for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis..._league_system
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:18 AM   #137
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 96,060
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Not sure on 5. I think puberty blockers would have to be given before puberty or are you not counting them as physical medical treatments?

Other than that isn't that pretty much what exists currently and would still exist with self-determination?
I was neutral on puberty blockers until this thread (whilst there is no doubt the thread has been full of irrational and often hateful comments there has been some good discussion and information), we don’t have a good understanding of possible side effects, long term health issues and so on so I would say until someone can make their own decision regarding medical treatments they shouldn’t be prescribed. We will gain this information over time as they are used for other medical treatments so in a few years we may be able to say they can again be used for under 16s in regards to gender changing as we will better understand the risks.

In effect we already have self-determination, no one is assigned their gender (I am aware of outliers such as intersex), if you wish to change it you can. However there is no doubt that today it is still important to society what gender someone is. (Whether that should be the case is a different discussion even though it often is thrown in to, in my view, simply muddy the waters.) Therefore society saying that “A, B and C have to be done if you want to change your gender” is addressing the world as it is, not how some people may want it to be, it is a “reasonable” course of action. Now of course it could be used unfairly by making the criteria too difficult to meet - but I would assume it to be no more arduous than it is today.

I hadn’t thought about the potential problem in regards to sports being completely free to determine their own criteria. As they say it is astonishing that there are apparently no gay top tier football players, so perhaps some sports may not adopt fair and objective criteria. There may be some need to provide a framework for sporting organisations.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:20 AM   #138
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post

The irrational behaviour is all on your side
Not even slightly and if you believe that you should take a step back and think again. And maybe dial back the aggression slightly?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:23 AM   #139
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by qayak View Post

I've brought up the point before, why not just put all trans-athletes in with men. The distribution will be much more even. You will have the Caitlyn Jenners (very few of them) still winning decathlons, .
Transwomen aren't men.

Caitlyn Jenner(s) would not be winning decathlons in male competitions.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:29 AM   #140
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. You can have an opinion on whether that’s good or bad, but that it happens isn’t a matter of opinion.
'Gay men are taking resources allocated to women' is a fact?

You sure about that?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:36 AM   #141
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I was neutral on puberty blockers until this thread (whilst there is no doubt the thread has been full of irrational and often hateful comments there has been some good discussion and information), we don’t have a good understanding of possible side effects, long term health issues and so on so I would say until someone can make their own decision regarding medical treatments they shouldn’t be prescribed. We will gain this information over time as they are used for other medical treatments so in a few years we may be able to say they can again be used for under 16s in regards to gender changing as we will better understand the risks.

In effect we already have self-determination, no one is assigned their gender (I am aware of outliers such as intersex), if you wish to change it you can. However there is no doubt that today it is still important to society what gender someone is. (Whether that should be the case is a different discussion even though it often is thrown in to, in my view, simply muddy the waters.) Therefore society saying that “A, B and C have to be done if you want to change your gender” is addressing the world as it is, not how some people may want it to be, it is a “reasonable” course of action. Now of course it could be used unfairly by making the criteria too difficult to meet - but I would assume it to be no more arduous than it is today.

I hadn’t thought about the potential problem in regards to sports being completely free to determine their own criteria. As they say it is astonishing that there are apparently no gay top tier football players, so perhaps some sports may not adopt fair and objective criteria. There may be some need to provide a framework for sporting organisations.
I have to disagree on the puberty blocker argument. The whole point of them is that they HAVE to be used before the person receiving the treatment is of an age where we would normally decide that they have the right to determine their own treatment. And the alternative to using them is at least equally unclear and risky. Forcing someone to go through an irreversible process and then trying to medicate/operate on them.

i don't believe there are no gay top tier footballers...only that they tend to stay closeted because they know what the impact would be of coming out. But yes we do need to reflect on what unfettered capitalism and consumerism leads to in society which is why I don't for a second buy into the 'if people want to see it and pay for it then its OK' school of thought that seems to be prevalent amongst our US chums.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:37 AM   #142
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
So why on earth would you want to deny someone access to a bathroom based on their gametes?
I think the question that is relevant here is why you would deny access to a bathroom or changing room based on anything at all. Why have the segregation between male and female?

If you can answer that, then you can see whether trans people ought to go to one or the other, based on the reason that the segregation exists at all.


That question is one that trans rights activists seem to want to ignore entirely. Some dismiss it and say that, really, the sex based segregation is just a social convention that serves no purpose. That's all very well and it then sidesteps the question of whether a transwoman should go here or go there, because it shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.

Other people ignore the why, and just say that it doesn't matter. Men are men, and go to the men's room. Women are women, and they go to the women's room. There is no need to explain why. That's just the way it is, and since transwomen are women, in the TRA narrative, the answer is obvious. They go to the women's room. The problem with this is that the term "women" becomes totally undefined in the process, and so the separation is arbitrary. Asking yourself why the separation exists in the first place would shed some light on all of those questions. It would shed light on the definition, and on the question of which bathroom or locker room transpeople ought to be in.

ETA: The whole question of gametes is something that is just trying to get to the definition problem. Of course no one discriminates based on gamete production, but gamete production is a way of illustrating that this thing called biological sex really is binary. There is something that is different about people who produce one kind of gamete, or have the organs for producing that kind of gamete, even if those organs are non-functional, versus people who produce the other kind of gamete, with the same qualifications.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 21st December 2020 at 05:40 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:48 AM   #143
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I don't know what the grassroots structures are for US sports in detail but can speak with certainty on soccer in most countries around the world absolutely having leagues and competitions for 'athletes that aren't good enough to be on the top pro teams'

Here's the English system for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis..._league_system
Ok. That's a somewhat different system than American baseball's minor leagues, but it is a skills based system.

Are there any women players? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there are no women at any level of that football pyramid, but there is a separate women's league.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 05:56 AM   #144
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Transwomen aren't men.

Caitlyn Jenner(s) would not be winning decathlons in male competitions.
Huh? She did. That's the point. Are you saying that at the time Caitlyn, then known as Bruce, was competing in the decathlon, he wasn't a woman? Did he become a woman later? How does this work?

Of course it is true of the post-transition Caitlyn Jenner that the medical treatments performed would reduce her athletic ability....and she's kind of old, too. So, due to treatment performed in transition, Caitlyn would no longer be a world class male athlete on the senior circuit, but that treatment is not an inherent part of being a transperson.

Those are meant to be serious questions, by the way. I'm not trying to catch anyone into some rhetorical trap. I would ask our resident "transwomen are women" supporters whether that person who won the decathlon in the 1976 olympics was a man or a woman at the time of the competition. If the answer is that the person was a man, when and how did that person become a woman?
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:00 AM   #145
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,919
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
'Gay men are taking resources allocated to women' is a fact?

You sure about that?
No, transwomen are. You didn’t specify who “they” were in your question, so I had to guess, and apparently I guessed wrong. If you meant gay men, I’m not sure what you are referring to. It can’t be sexual partners, because gay men are not allocated to women, and gay men pick other gay men as sexual partners.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:37 AM   #146
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think the question that is relevant here is why you would deny access to a bathroom or changing room based on anything at all. Why have the segregation between male and female?

If you can answer that, then you can see whether trans people ought to go to one or the other, based on the reason that the segregation exists at all.
That's A question yes. But not the question to be asking if you want to define binary sex as only being about gametes. If you want to throw other things into the mix then you have to also throw those other things into your definition of sex.

My question was specifically to someone who wanted to define binary sex as solely about gamete production.

Quote:
That question is one that trans rights activists seem to want to ignore entirely. Some dismiss it and say that, really, the sex based segregation is just a social convention that serves no purpose. That's all very well and it then sidesteps the question of whether a transwoman should go here or go there, because it shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.

Other people ignore the why, and just say that it doesn't matter. Men are men, and go to the men's room. Women are women, and they go to the women's room. There is no need to explain why. That's just the way it is, and since transwomen are women, in the TRA narrative, the answer is obvious. They go to the women's room. The problem with this is that the term "women" becomes totally undefined in the process, and so the separation is arbitrary. Asking yourself why the separation exists in the first place would shed some light on all of those questions. It would shed light on the definition, and on the question of which bathroom or locker room transpeople ought to be in.

ETA: The whole question of gametes is something that is just trying to get to the definition problem. Of course no one discriminates based on gamete production, but gamete production is a way of illustrating that this thing called biological sex really is binary. There is something that is different about people who produce one kind of gamete, or have the organs for producing that kind of gamete, even if those organs are non-functional, versus people who produce the other kind of gamete, with the same qualifications.
No that wasn't the argument. It wasn't that gamete production was illustrating something. It was that gamete production was defining something and that all the other things that you are trying to include here didn't matter at all.

Which is what I was pushing back against. You cannot say 'if we remove everything else then we can define sex as clearly binary then with that agreed we can add everything else back to base policy on sex' that's having your cake and eating it.

You will notice that I try to ask specific questions of specific people making specific arguments. You may or may not have noticed that what i get in response to them is non-answers or answers to different questions that weren't asked. People are free to do that but I don't find it helpful.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:45 AM   #147
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ok. That's a somewhat different system than American baseball's minor leagues, but it is a skills based system.

Are there any women players? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there are no women at any level of that football pyramid, but there is a separate women's league.
A separate women's league which tends not have the same depth of pyramid as its relatively new.

Historically (from memory) mixed teams were disallowed by the authorities past about age 10 or 12 but I think its 16 or 18 now. Beyond that it's strictly separate though unclear if the rules technically segregate by sex or gender.

There have been one or two examples of mens teams attempting to sign women and being blocked by the authorities.

Transwomen are able to compete in the women's leagues with permission from the authorities. I am personally unaware of any competing at the elite level of women's soccer in the UK.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:55 AM   #148
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Huh? She did. That's the point. Are you saying that at the time Caitlyn, then known as Bruce, was competing in the decathlon, he wasn't a woman? Did he become a woman later? How does this work?

Of course it is true of the post-transition Caitlyn Jenner that the medical treatments performed would reduce her athletic ability....and she's kind of old, too. So, due to treatment performed in transition, Caitlyn would no longer be a world class male athlete on the senior circuit, but that treatment is not an inherent part of being a transperson.

Those are meant to be serious questions, by the way. I'm not trying to catch anyone into some rhetorical trap. I would ask our resident "transwomen are women" supporters whether that person who won the decathlon in the 1976 olympics was a man or a woman at the time of the competition. If the answer is that the person was a man, when and how did that person become a woman?
I think you've kind of answered your own questions.

Bruce Jenner had not transitioned when he won decathlons.
Caitlyn Jenner transitioned and that transition included hormone treatments that would have reduced her ability to compete with cismen. Therefore Caitlyn Jenners could not win decathlons in the male category.

We can discuss a hypothetical of someone who transitioned but did not take hormone treatments but that wouldn't be (a) Caitlyn Jenner.

I don't really worry too much about what Bruce Jenner was... if you want to call him a man or you want to say Bruce Jenner was an untransitioned or pre-transitioned transwoman. I don't think it really matters and I think you would probably need access to information on their thinking and psychology that neither of us possess.

What is clear is that the Bruce Jenner who won decathlons would not meet the criteria to legally self-ID as a woman and would legally be a man. Had Bruce Jenner attempted to compete in the woman's competition he would have been denied access.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:58 AM   #149
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,059
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think the question that is relevant here is why you would deny access to a bathroom or changing room based on anything at all. Why have the segregation between male and female?
(IMO/YMMV)

We have to answer whether any given instance of segregation is by sex or by gender in the first place, e.g. changing rooms in dept. stores appear to be segregated based on gender, as are the clothing shelves themselves. By contrast, top level rugby leagues appear to be segregated by sex.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st December 2020 at 06:59 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:58 AM   #150
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, transwomen are. You didn’t specify who “they” were in your question, so I had to guess, and apparently I guessed wrong. If you meant gay men, I’m not sure what you are referring to. It can’t be sexual partners, because gay men are not allocated to women, and gay men pick other gay men as sexual partners.
You had to guess that the response to a quoted post about gay men referred to gay men? No wonder you struggle to add anything to the discussion if that's your level of reading for context.

And bi-sexual men exist.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 06:58 AM   #151
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
That's A question yes. But not the question to be asking if you want to define binary sex as only being about gametes. If you want to throw other things into the mix then you have to also throw those other things into your definition of sex.

My question was specifically to someone who wanted to define binary sex as solely about gamete production.



No that wasn't the argument. It wasn't that gamete production was illustrating something. It was that gamete production was defining something and that all the other things that you are trying to include here didn't matter at all.

Which is what I was pushing back against. You cannot say 'if we remove everything else then we can define sex as clearly binary then with that agreed we can add everything else back to base policy on sex' that's having your cake and eating it.

You will notice that I try to ask specific questions of specific people making specific arguments. You may or may not have noticed that what i get in response to them is non-answers or answers to different questions that weren't asked. People are free to do that but I don't find it helpful.
You asked why bathroom segregation should be based on gametes.

I'm not sure how that question fits into the above post.


When it comes to biological sex, it really is all about gamete production. If you produce a specific sort of gamete, then you are of the sex corresponding to that gamete. Period. No exceptions. When it comes to people who produce no gametes at all, the answer is somewhat more complicated. Generally, I think biologists would have no difficulty assigning a biological sex to non gamete producers based on anatomical similarity to gamete producers. The number of people not classifiable through those means is either zero or vanishingly small. I'm not sure if there is anyone who truly cannot be classified in that way, but if those people exist, there aren't many. However, it may be that for some purposes, some biologists might say that people who produce no gametes are not truly of either sex. However, I suspect that is almost never said about humans. Perhaps it is said that more often about other species. I have heard it said that honeybee workers are sterile females, and I have heard that they have no sex at all. I don't know which statement is more popular among entymologists.

An interesting case is other species where a single organism is capable of producing both types of gametes, but not at the same time. Some species of fish and amphibians can produce sperm at one point in their lives, and eggs at a different point in their lives. I have always heard it said that these individuals change sex. When they produce sperm, they are males. When they start producing eggs, they are females. That's because biological sex really is determined by gamete production.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 21st December 2020 at 07:06 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:16 AM   #152
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I don't really worry too much about what Bruce Jenner was... if you want to call him a man or you want to say Bruce Jenner was an untransitioned or pre-transitioned transwoman. I don't think it really matters and I think you would probably need access to information on their thinking and psychology that neither of us possess.

What is clear is that the Bruce Jenner who won decathlons would not meet the criteria to legally self-ID as a woman and would legally be a man. Had Bruce Jenner attempted to compete in the woman's competition he would have been denied access.
However, it goes to the question of whether a transwoman is "really" a woman.

Clearly Bruce Jenner would not have been allowed to compete in a women's competition in 1976, based on law and policy. However, does law and policy determine one's sex? Can an act of the legislature change someone from male to female? Legally, of course it can, but I don't think many people would say that they have such power to make such changes in reality.

So, today, we have lots of people who will insist that Caitlyn Jenner is "really" a woman. She is every bit as much a woman as, for example, Kylie Jenner. At least, that is what some would say.

So if Caitlyn Jenner is "really" a woman today, was Bruce Jenner "really" a woman in 1976? Or is it that humans can change sex?

I get that you aren't interested or don't want to answer that question, but unless that question can be answered, the assertion that transwomen are really women doesn't have any meaning. Of course, that lack of meaning and definition doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:16 AM   #153
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,919
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
You had to guess that the response to a quoted post about gay men referred to gay men?
What exactly do you think the context of all this discussion about gay men is? Why is it even in this thread?

Quote:
And bi-sexual men exist.
And bisexual men aren't allocated to women alone, are they?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:18 AM   #154
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You asked why bathroom segregation should be based on gametes..
Indeed I did. And you answered with a different possibly interesting question but not an answer to the question i asked. Which is fair enough since the question wasn't asked specifically of you.

I'm not challenging the idea here that gamete production defines biological sex. What I am asking is that if, as argued, we have to remove everything else BUT gamete production to define biological sex then why should I care about biological sex at all?

I used bathroom segregation as an example of that general points. As far as I can see the only reason to separate bathroom usage based on gamete production would be if there was a risk of getting pregnant from using a toilet. And even then I'm not sure if that follows purely from gamete production, after all if it's only about biology and gamete production then getting pregnant is a good thing. That's what our biology is for!

So my sense is that by stripping out all of the 'fuzzy areas' of biology to a neat clear line all we have done is strip out anything that actually matters to the social topics being discussed and I don't think that helps.

But I suspect what actually happens is that once we all agree on the neat clear line we then smuggle back in all of the things we got rid of to agree on it in the first place.

It seems from your arguments that you aren't stripping things back to gametes purely but are happy enough to bundle a bunch of other things in as well so my push back is maybe not addressed at you specifically. Its a practical difficulty of this conversation that there are a lot of different nuances of positions to be addressed.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:27 AM   #155
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I get that you aren't interested or don't want to answer that question, but unless that question can be answered, the assertion that transwomen are really women doesn't have any meaning. Of course, that lack of meaning and definition doesn't seem to bother a lot of people.
That's a bit naughty since I actually did give you an answer. That answering that question would require access to details of Bruce Jenner's psychology and thinking that I don't have. And presumably you don't either.

You would probably have to ask Caitlyn Jenner to get an answer. And even then I am not sure that would be definitive 40-odd years after the event.

I'm comfortable with the idea that Jenner was always a woman, I'm comfortable with the idea that Jenner was once a man and became a woman. I'm comfortable with the idea that we can't pinpoint an exact moment when that happened.

We struggle with these kind of fuzzy lines all the time. Even in hard sciences.
It doesn't render things meaningless it just means that sometimes you have to be comfortable with an element of ambiguity.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:30 AM   #156
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What exactly do you think the context of all this discussion about gay men is? Why is it even in this thread?

And bisexual men aren't allocated to women alone, are they?
I was going to give you answers to these questions but since they seem to confuse you I will try your tactic of just asking a tangentially related question as if it somehow matters.

Why do you think any human being is ALLOCATED to any other?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:44 AM   #157
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Indeed I did. And you answered with a different possibly interesting question but not an answer to the question i asked. Which is fair enough since the question wasn't asked specifically of you.

I'm not challenging the idea here that gamete production defines biological sex. What I am asking is that if, as argued, we have to remove everything else BUT gamete production to define biological sex then why should I care about biological sex at all?

I used bathroom segregation as an example of that general points. As far as I can see the only reason to separate bathroom usage based on gamete production would be if there was a risk of getting pregnant from using a toilet. And even then I'm not sure if that follows purely from gamete production, after all if it's only about biology and gamete production then getting pregnant is a good thing. That's what our biology is for!

So my sense is that by stripping out all of the 'fuzzy areas' of biology to a neat clear line all we have done is strip out anything that actually matters to the social topics being discussed and I don't think that helps.

But I suspect what actually happens is that once we all agree on the neat clear line we then smuggle back in all of the things we got rid of to agree on it in the first place.

It seems from your arguments that you aren't stripping things back to gametes purely but are happy enough to bundle a bunch of other things in as well so my push back is maybe not addressed at you specifically. Its a practical difficulty of this conversation that there are a lot of different nuances of positions to be addressed.
I'll try to address this, then.

An awful lot of these moving things around in conversations comes from people seizing on incomplete or general statements and finding some apparent inconsistencies and declaring that since one side or the other cannot cover every possible case in complete detail, we get to make up whatever we want. If we say anatomy, someone will point to someone who has suffered an injury with a hand grenade, and then somehow get from there to the idea that Colleen Brenna can use the girls' locker room and Jonathan Yaniv ought to be able to demand ball waxing. So much is just word games.

However, the underlying biology really exists, and at the level of gamete production, it's clear.

In reality, we don't separate locker rooms based on gamete production, because we have no way of verifying whether someone is actually producing gametes, and we are not all that concerned anyway. It gets driven to that by playing along with the word games that people use to dodge the issue.

What we are truly concerned with is something that is very, very, closely correlated with gamete production. What we are truly concerned with is the manner in which one would engage in sexual intercourse. That is the actual basis of the segregation. If the people involved are actually producing gametes, then the consequences of that sexual intercourse are even more significant, but people will react to the possibility of intercourse even when the absence of gamete production would make pregnancy impossible.

Your comments about people not getting pregnant from using the toilet are just a diversion, because it is not actually using the toilet that is the issue, it is that partial disrobing and exposure is necessary during the course of using a toilet. One could question whether it is wise or sensible to feel anxious about exposure of genital areas, and we could discuss whether that anxiety is a consequence of social conditioning or is instinctive, but no sane person would doubt that it is very real and very common.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 21st December 2020 at 07:50 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:45 AM   #158
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,745
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
She didn't take any resources allotted to women.

It was a freaking GLAMOUR magazine madey uppy title. Had they wanted to give another woman an award they could easily have made 26 of them.

Your opinion on whether she deserved the award is neither here nor there. Glamour Magazine felt she did.

Moaning about it just makes you seem silly.
It's indicative of how absolutely woo woo the trans rights discussion has become and I know several women who changed their opinions in trans rights because of it. 100% of women know more about being a woman than Jenner dies.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:48 AM   #159
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 96,060
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ok. That's a somewhat different system than American baseball's minor leagues, but it is a skills based system.

Are there any women players? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there are no women at any level of that football pyramid, but there is a separate women's league.
Because women playing football was very popular and they were successfully competing with the male leagues the FA stepped in and banned women from playing in the leagues.

Women have their own leagues and because of the quirk of USA sports participation at a young age you are very successful on the world stage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...d-cup-n1027206
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 07:54 AM   #160
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I'm comfortable with the idea that Jenner was once a man and became a woman. I'm comfortable with the idea that we can't pinpoint an exact moment when that happened.
Ok. That's a good enough answer for me. You are saying that it is possible for an individual human being to change from a man to a woman, in a very real sense. It is possible for an individual to really and truly be a man, and at some time in their later life, to really and truly be a woman.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.