ISF Logo   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 23rd June 2020, 05:08 PM   #241
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
...sex/gender definitions are important in real life to the happiness of many, many trans-gender people.
I find it a bit surprising that we feel the need to reconceptualize sex as a spectrum for the sake of anyone's happiness other than that of intersex individuals; even if we had exactly two sexes and zero DSDs, wouldn't trans folks still exist and want to be seen as the sex that the OB-GYN didn't see?
__________________
"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 23rd June 2020, 05:20 PM   #242
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,758
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
There are some XYs with penises shorter than some XXs clitori.
And? They're still one or the other, are they not?

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
You realize this whole conversation is about people who are the exception, right? So dismissing the exceptions makes no sense.
The problem is that the argument confuses transgender and intersex already. It's not as if it makes sense to begin with.

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
2. I listed several properties of gender that typically used to define gender but that are variables.
Every time I see such a confusion of gender and sex when I'm told the two are definitely absolutely not the same, I find it amusing.

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I still don’t see why this is such an issue with so many posters. To me it’s much like debating if viruses are alive or not. It depends on the definitions one chooses to apply and one”s own subjective viewpoints.
Except that the discussion is about biological men's acceptance into women's sports, for instance. I think it's a bit important to those women.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 23rd June 2020, 05:55 PM   #243
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
You realize this whole conversation is about people who are the exception, right? So dismissing the exceptions makes no sense.
Not sure I follow you. The whole conversation in general, or a specific subset of the conversation?

What I mean is that transgender people are not exceptions. A transwoman is a person of male sex who "identifies", whatever that means, as being of the female gender, whatever that means. However, they are of the male sex.

There are very, very, few people who cannot be appropriately and clearly classified as male or female. (sex) I'm not absolutely certain that there are any that can't be so classified. If you are talking about those very few in the subset of the thread, then that's not the sense that I got from the post I responded to.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 23rd June 2020 at 05:56 PM.
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 23rd June 2020, 05:55 PM   #244
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've been mugged 3 times. Everytime it was a black man. Do I get to be racist now? What about the 4th time? The 5th?

What's the cutoff? When does one demographic do enough bad things to me that I get to dislike the whole demographic? When does one demographic do enough things to another demographic that it becomes the norm to just assume they'll do it.
That doesn't address the issue that there is a low cost and high payoff to sex-segregated spaces.

Do you have similar plan for racial segregation that will lower the rate at which people are violently assaulted or murdered, and think that my agreement with sex segregation implies agreement with a plan for racial segregation? I'd have to see the plan to know if it made sense to me on the same practical grounds. But said plan would have an additional problem beyond sex based segregation, which is that racial differences in crime rate are not biologically based, and I think we should all be working toward a future of economic and social equality where people of all races have similar opportunities in life. That's not currently the case, which is what has led to these different crime rates. Treating the symptom through segregation would likely only make the disease even worse, so there's a good argument, even if you did have such a plan, not to use it because the cost is maintaining the exact structure of racial inequality whose effects we're talking about mitigating. There are also other negative consequences of that structure that add to the costs of such a plan.

The same is not true of sex based segregation in locker rooms, for instance: it's not leading to social and economic disparities between the sexes. If you do have an argument that it is, I'd be willing to consider that and on that basis it might be worth doing away with.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 23rd June 2020, 06:14 PM   #245
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Well what you claimed was that biological sex was not binary, not that gender was not binary. How could it be more confusing to use the terms sex and gender properly as defined in their respective fields, rather than interchangeably in some vague personal way?



Well yeah, post-menopause women do not engage in sexual reproduction (or asexual reproduction for that matter) and neither do infertile men, that much seems obvious. If you want to argue that puts them into the "neither" category from above then sure, you could do so. I suppose you could also argue that, given that humans don't change sex over their lifetime, a woman remains a female organism even after entering menopause. Which, btw, again supports sex being a binary since there are 4 categories (male, female, neither, both) and 4 = 2^2.



Yes, many times already. Sex wasn't a spectrum back then and it still isn't one now.



Sure. But if you agree that these (and other such phenotype varieties) are bad ways to distinguish sexes, then why did you bring them up? Just because you can come up with bad ways to distinguish sexes doesn't mean you can't distinguish sexes. I can come up with bad ways to distinguish English from French text, say by tossing a coin, but that doesn't mean that I am generally incapable of distinguishing between English and French text.
My arguments have been to counter the definitions of binary sex offered by others in this thread. Yes, these definitions are bad ones. My point!

If you agree that these definitions are poor ones then their use by people opposed to trans-sexual rights is wrong, true? Okay come up with a better definition. If you are using gamete production as your bible of sex you are reduced to maintaining that post-menopausal women, or sterile men, have no sex because they do not release gametes. Then gamete release may be a biological definition of sex but is very useless for the points we are discussing here, which then really relate to gender identity. Do we seek to make 60 year old women change their driving license to “Sex: None”? That they should loss the protections against sexual discrimination? This must follow if “true biological sex” is being used to justify the exclusion of trans-sexuals.

I see I am beginning to have to repeat posts, which is very boring for all and why I first checked out of this thread a long time ago.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 06:19 PM   #246
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I agree, they are women. But they are XYs. They have internal testis. They produce sperm, although infertile ones (as do many cis men). So why do you not shoehorn them into the male category given the definitions you and others have cited here?
I think you need to be more clear about who you are replying to. There are many people posting in this thread, but Rolfe's definition of sex has always been very clear and consistent.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 23rd June 2020, 06:29 PM   #247
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And? They're still one or the other, are they not?



The problem is that the argument confuses transgender and intersex already. It's not as if it makes sense to begin with.



Every time I see such a confusion of gender and sex when I'm told the two are definitely absolutely not the same, I find it amusing.



Except that the discussion is about biological men's acceptance into women's sports, for instance. I think it's a bit important to those women.
No, they are not one or the other for the many reasons I stated. And intersex states are one reason they are not one or the other.

As I stated several times the idea we should only be talking about sex and not gender is meant as a distraction. The issues we are really discussing here are not if and what kind of gametes someone produces; we probably all agree that sterile people being defined as “sexless” by this definition is silly and irrelevant to the real point of this thread. We are discussing the proper place in society of trans individuals: that really relates to gender identification.

Finally I pointed out upthread that trans-people in sports is a more difficult issue that I intended to discuss later. But I was blindsided by the resistance by many here of what are very simple biological facts. Namely gender, and even sex, are not binary. Like it or not. Say it isn’t true over and over again. But the biology is very clear as I explained above.

Last edited by Giordano; 23rd June 2020 at 06:30 PM.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 06:35 PM   #248
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think you need to be more clear about who you are replying to. There are many people posting in this thread, but Rolfe's definition of sex has always been very clear and consistent.
I specifically quoted Rolfe‘a post as the basis for my post. How much more clear could I be? Of course other opinions my differ, but clearly I was referring to Rolfe’s.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 06:42 PM   #249
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I find it a bit surprising that we feel the need to reconceptualize sex as a spectrum for the sake of anyone's happiness other than that of intersex individuals; even if we had exactly two sexes and zero DSDs, wouldn't trans folks still exist and want to be seen as the sex that the OB-GYN didn't see?
I am going back to discussing gender, not sex, because sex is a narrow, distracting, and irrelevant aspect to what is really under discussion.

Of course these folks would exist. They always have, although with far fewer opinions than now. And I am arguing the reality of gender being fluid and non binary, and that it is important to recognize this fact to support and help those people who find themselves on the outs with current society because they are experiencing this truth themselves.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 06:44 PM   #250
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My arguments have been to counter the definitions of binary sex offered by others in this thread. Yes, these definitions are bad ones. My point!
Except that's simply not true. You claimed biological sex is not binary. I claimed that, to the contrary, it is binary, giving you the definition based on gamete type (as well as pointing out that it's called sexual dimorphism rather than sexual infinity-morphism for a reason). You then gave a bunch of bad definitions - which, contrary to your claim here, I did not offer first - and used them to claim that sex isn't binary.

Quote:
If you agree that these definitions are poor ones then their use by people opposed to trans-sexual rights is wrong, true?
Why should I care about your strawmen? Show me where I offered such definitions or admit you're arguing strawmen. It seems pretty clear to me, as per the third link above, that it was you who introduced definitions about chromosomes, hormone levels, phenotype variation, etc into the discussion.

Quote:
Okay come up with a better definition.
Already have from the start, see the second link above.

Quote:
If you are using gamete production as your bible of sex you are reduced to maintaining that post-menopausal women, or sterile men, have no sex because they do not release gametes.
"bible"

Also, no, you're not actually reduced to maintaining that as I already pointed out.

Quote:
Then gamete release may be a biological definition of sex but is very useless for the points we are discussing here, which then really relate to gender identity.
And that's a non-sequitur as well as a false dilemma, and a common one as well. Even if we assume that you can find flaws in one idea (using biological sex) that does not mean that your preferred idea (using gender identity) automatically becomes the default.

Quote:
Do we seek to make 60 year old women change their driving license to “Sex: None”? That they should loss the protections against sexual discrimination? This must follow if “true biological sex” is being used to justify the exclusion of trans-sexuals.
None of that follows. And even if it did, none of that entails that sex isn't binary.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 23rd June 2020 at 06:57 PM.
caveman1917 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 23rd June 2020, 07:02 PM   #251
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Except that's simply not true. You claimed biological sex is not binary. I claimed that, to the contrary, it is binary giving you the definition based on gamete type (as well as pointing out that it's called sexual dimorphism rather than sexual infinity-morphism for a reason). You then gave a bunch of bad definitions - which, contrary to your claim here, I did not offer first - and used them to claim that sex isn't binary.



Why should I care about your strawmen? Show me where I offered such definitions or admit you're arguing strawmen. It seems pretty clear to me, as per the third link above, that it was you who introduced definitions about chromosomes, hormone levels, phenotype variation, etc into the discussion.



Already have from the start, see the second link above.



"bible"

Also, no, you're not actually reduced to maintaining that as I already pointed out.



And that's a non-sequitur as well as a false dilemma, and a common one as well. Even if we assume that you can find flaws in one idea (using biological sex) that does not mean that your preferred idea (using gender identity) automatically becomes the default.



None of that follows. And even if it did, none of that entails that sex isn't binary.
I provided reasons that even biological sex is neither binary nor a useful basis for the discussion at hand. We are really discussing society and gender.

I then asked what then is an appropriate definition and provided the most common ones used by people seeking to define gender and showed they are inaccurate too. I did not claim you yourself used them, I presented them as failures to argue gender is binary and asked you that if you agree, then what definition would you use.

If you want to stick with the narrow gamete argument, fine. But then apply it to sterile and CAI people as well as trans folk. Binary when you are reduced to arguing that binary means women and men vs neither and both? Come on!

Frankly if we are down to defining trans-sexuals as not “real” men or women because the the gametes they they produce, then I feel you’ve already lost the essential argument. Is that the core of this thread? Isn’t it the acceptance and place in society of these folks as we normally define man and women? Which is not by the gametes they produce. Do we exclude the rights of pre-pubescent children to have a gender in society? Sterile adults? Post-menopausal women?

Last edited by Giordano; 23rd June 2020 at 07:25 PM.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 07:15 PM   #252
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I specifically quoted Rolfe‘a post as the basis for my post. How much more clear could I be? Of course other opinions my differ, but clearly I was referring to Rolfe’s.
Yes, and you ask this question:

Quote:
I agree, they are women. But they are XYs. They have internal testis. They produce sperm, although infertile ones (as do many cis men). So why do you not shoehorn them into the male category given the definitions you and others have cited here?
Whose answer is quite clear given the definitions that Rolfe has used for sex. Rolfe has been much more precise than others about how she is defining sex, so perhaps you could state where you think the conflict is between Rolfe's definition of sex and the classification of those women as female?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 23rd June 2020, 07:20 PM   #253
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I provided reasons that even biological sex is neither binary nor a useful basis for the discussion at hand. We are really discussing society and gender.

I then asked what then is an appropriate definition and provided the most common ones used by people seeking to define gender and showed they are inaccurate too. I did not claim you yourself used them, I presented them as failures to argue gender is binary and asked you that if you agree, then what definition would you use.

If you want to stick with the narrow gamete argument, fine. But then apply it to sterile and CAI people as well as trans folk. Binary when you are reduced to arguing that binary means women and men vs neither and both? Come on!
This is weird. People say sex is binary, and you disagree, and in support of your disagreement supply evidence that gender is non-binary. I would suggest that evidence that gender is non-binary is in no way supportive of your argument that sex is non-binary.

If you think that the issue of gender being non-binary is more important to the discussion than the issue of sex, that's fine. But you have still claimed that sex is non-binary and if you want to support that claim talking about gender doesn't do it. You can always say "yes, sex is binary, but that doesn't have any relevance to the issues, which center around gender". Or, even "while I think sex is non-binary I'm not willing to engage in that discussion because it distracts from the issues that are important". But you haven't done either of those things, you say "that sex is non-binary has been demonstrated but the evidence is being ignored" and when pressed for that evidence keep talking about gender.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 23rd June 2020, 07:24 PM   #254
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I provided reasons that even biological sex is neither binary nor a useful basis for the discussion at hand.
Except that you didn't provide reasons that biological sex isn't binary. You've made a bunch of statements on the subject, but none of those constituted sound arguments that biological sex isn't binary.

Quote:
We are really discussing society and gender.
Not sure what discussion you believe we had, but we were discussing your claim that sex is not binary.

Quote:
I then asked well what then is an appropriate definition and provided the most common ones used by people seeking to define gender and showed they are inaccurate too. I did not claim you yourself used them, I presented them as failures to argue gender is binary and asked you that if you agree, then what definition would you use.
As I indicated earlier, I'm not sure what different definitions of gender have to do with whether sex is binary or not. I'm also not sure I've seen people define gender in terms of chromosomes or hormone levels, but sure I guess.

Quote:
If you want to stick with the narrow gamete argument, fine. But the apply it to sterile and CAI people as well as trans folk. Binary when you are reduced to arguing that binary means women and men vs neither and both? Come on!
Not sure what point you're making here, at least those last two sentences don't seem to amount to a recognizable argument. But let's use CAI people as an example as per your suggestion. Even if you can find minor differences between, say, Rolfe's definitions (functional SRY + functional androgen receptors) that would classify CAI as female and, say, the gamete definition that would classify CAI as either male (if we allow for any, including infertile, sperm production) or neither (if we only allow for fertile sperm production) that still doesn't support the claim of sex not being binary, since the difference is in what category some specific organisms would fall and not in the number of categories there are (which is, in both cases, 4 and hence meaning there are 2 sexes). Rolfe's definition has the advantage of having a much smaller "neither" class (neither definition has members in the "both" class, at least not for humans) but the disadvantage of not being as generally applicable across different species.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 23rd June 2020 at 07:28 PM.
caveman1917 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 23rd June 2020, 07:32 PM   #255
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
This is weird. People say sex is binary, and you disagree, and in support of your disagreement supply evidence that gender is non-binary. I would suggest that evidence that gender is non-binary is in no way supportive of your argument that sex is non-binary.

If you think that the issue of gender being non-binary is more important to the discussion than the issue of sex, that's fine. But you have still claimed that sex is non-binary and if you want to support that claim talking about gender doesn't do it. You can always say "yes, sex is binary, but that doesn't have any relevance to the issues, which center around gender". Or, even "while I think sex is non-binary I'm not willing to engage in that discussion because it distracts from the issues that are important". But you haven't done either of those things, you say "that sex is non-binary has been demonstrated but the evidence is being ignored" and when pressed for that evidence keep talking about gender.
I began discussing gender, which is clearly the real issue, but was taken to task for it. So I explained why even sex was not binary. Must I endlessly repeat it? If sex is which gametes one produces then pre-pubescent children, sterile adults, and post-menopausal women have no sex; is it binary then? Then CAI people are males. Is that right?

Last edited by Giordano; 23rd June 2020 at 07:35 PM.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 07:41 PM   #256
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Got to go.
Giordano 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 23rd June 2020, 07:46 PM   #257
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I began discussing gender, which is clearly the real issue, but was taken to task for it. So I explained why even sex was not binary. Must I endlessly repeat it? If sex is which gametes one produces then pre-pubescent children, sterile adults, and post-menopausal women have no sex; is it binary then? Then CAI people are males. Is that right?
Clearly?

I'm not sure that there is just one issue, in which case nothing would count as "the real issue", but when it comes to what "the real issue" is in a lot of cases, a lot of people would say sex is "the real issue".

Declaring it clear does not make it clear.
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 23rd June 2020, 08:36 PM   #258
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
If sex is which gametes one produces then pre-pubescent children, sterile adults, and post-menopausal women have no sex; is it binary then?
Gamete production is binary in mammals, and to the extent that sexWP is about reproduction (the act itself usually isn't, happily enough) the process requires at least one gamete from a female and at least one from a male. The development of primary sexual characteristics and (to a lesser extent) secondary sexual characteristics serves to help along the process of bringing two (quite different) haploid cells together in order to start the formation of a new mammal. If the intelligent design folks were right about the world, we could say that this is what sex is for at some cosmic teleological level, but as it is, it simply is what it is.

What I'm getting at here is that we have this ineluctable dichotomy lurking down in the conceptual foundations when we're talking about sexual reproduction: females carry large immobile germ cells, healthy mature males produce tiny motile germ cells. Among the reasons I was "assigned male at birth" is that the doc made a (correct) guess at which sort of germ cells I'd eventually produce.

As to those who cannot produce germ cells, well, we'd have to be guided by other indicators such as whether the mesonephric or paramesonephric ducts went on to become the main sexual plumbing, not to mention the usual external features. I don't think there is a need to force everyone into the male/female dichotomy, of course, unless you're running some sort of Bene Gesserit breeding program or a sports league. In the latter case, Rolfe's defintion based on androgen production and receptors makes more sense than going back to basics re: reproduction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A 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 23rd June 2020, 08:59 PM   #259
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,375
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My arguments have been to counter the definitions of binary sex offered by others in this thread. Yes, these definitions are bad ones. My point!
What’s wrong with the definition of sex in humans that Rolfe gave: SRY gene plus androgen receptors = male. Anything else is female. That’s completely binary at the cellular level, and only non-binary at the organism level if you are a mixed sex chimera.
__________________
"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 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 23rd June 2020, 09:13 PM   #260
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Giordano
I began discussing gender, which is clearly the real issue, but was taken to task for it. So I explained why even sex was not binary.
You began with a post in which you claimed:
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post

2. Biological set is not binary, as explained multiple times upthread. Size and shape of genitalia, levels of sex hormones, etc, vary widely even within cis males and females.
And were taken to task for that. This is not a statement about gender, but about sex. It seems reasonable that if you want to make this claim, you should be expected to provide evidence for it, and not to move to a separate claim about gender.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 24th June 2020, 01:45 AM   #261
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,179
Women with Swyer's symdrome and CAIS women do not produce sperm. Anyone who produces sperm is male. Certainly there are males who do not produce sperm, but sperm production is an absolute definer of being of the male sex. Read the "DrFondOfBeetles" thread again.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 24th June 2020, 01:49 AM   #262
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,918
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
(Seems to me you're just giving her guff for accurately but briefly paraphrasing Forstater's actual beliefs, as opposed to misstating them.)
I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Rowling said that the judge was ruling on a philosophical belief. The judge was actually ruling on whether it was a philosophical belief.

Rowling said that the belief in question was that sex is determined by biology (a belief that nobody disagrees with, BTW), when the actual belief in question was that and that gender was not a "reality" and that femaleness was determined by biology.

Quote:
Andrew Carter did so over and over again.
And yet you pounced on one thing in order to falsely categorise it as wrong, and thereby hand-wave away everything he said.

Quote:
Do you disagree with such a characterization?
She was equivocating. In non-legal terms the belief could be called philosophical, but the thing that was under discussion was a legal ruling, where the term "philosophical belief" has a specific meaning.

The most charitable interpretation is that she was equivocating because she didn't understand what she was talking about. I'm disinclined to apply a charitable interpretation to her words, given her past history and, indeed, her mischaracterisation of the substance of that case or of what it was that Forstarter was actually fighting for - which, let's be clear, was the right to create a hostile work environment for trans people.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 02:03 AM   #263
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,918
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If person A and person B are capable of engaging in sexual intercourse with the result that person B becomes pregnant, then person A is a male and person B is a female.
Then infertile people are neither?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 05:00 AM   #264
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Rowling said that the judge was ruling on a philosophical belief. The judge was actually ruling on whether it was a philosophical belief.
Two things here:

1) The judge was ruling on whether it was the kind of philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act of 2010. In the decision itself, the phrasing is "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA."

2) Rowling actually said that Forstater was "asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law." This is essentially what Forstater was actually asking, though the belief at issue was a bit more teased out:

Quote:
Claimant believes that “sex” is a material reality which should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity”. Being female is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity.
I'm not about to fault Rowling for brevity, given that the Forstater case was just one of many events she felt compelled to summarize in her letter.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Rowling said that the belief in question was that sex is determined by biology (a belief that nobody disagrees with, BTW), when the actual belief in question was that and that gender was not a "reality" and that femaleness was determined by biology.
I cannot find the part of the judgment where the Claimant says gender is not a reality, nor the part of Rowling's essay where she mischaracterizes this claim.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
In non-legal terms the belief could be called philosophical, but the thing that was under discussion was a legal ruling, where the term "philosophical belief" has a specific meaning.
Again "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA" does not encompass the whole universe of possible philosophical beliefs, and it is not remotely equivocal or deceptive for Rowling to expect readers take this into account. You are nitpicking based on a singularly uncharitable interpretation, and would do better to find a claim that is falsifiable when interpreted straightforwardly and in context.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2020 at 05:19 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 24th June 2020, 05:20 AM   #265
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,918
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Two things here:

1) The judge was ruling on whether it was the kind of philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act of 2010. In the decision itself, the phrasing is "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA."
That means that he was looking at whether her belief is a philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act of 2010. Here is the relevant section of Chapter 1, which described protected characteristics:

Quote:
Religion or belief
(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.
You'll note that it says "any [...] philosophical belief". All philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act of 2010. The judge was determining whether her beliefs were a philosophical belief under the law. He goes in to detail about the criteria he uses, and why he rejected it, if you read it.

Quote:
2) Rowling actually said that Forstater was "asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law." This is essentially what Forstater was actually asking, though the belief at issue was a bit more teased out:
If here you're trying to say that Forstater was starting from the premise that her belief was philosophical and therefore protected then yes, obviously. That Rowling started from the premise that it was a philosophical belief was, at best interpretation, equivocation through lack of understanding of what the terms she was using actually meant.

Quote:
I'm not about to fault Rowling for brevity, given that the Forstater case was just one of many events she felt compelled to summarize in her letter.
I'm not faulting her for brevity. I'm faulting her for being misleading.

Quote:
I cannot find the part of the judgment where the Claimant says gender is not a reality, nor the part of Rowling's essay where she mischaracterizes this claim.
Of course you can't. Well, I'm still not going to repeat myself ad nauseum for you.

Quote:
Again "a philosophical belief pursuant to section 10 EqA" does not encompass the whole universe of possible philosophical beliefs[...]
Legally, it does.

Quote:
You are nitpicking based on a singularly uncharitable interpretation, and would do better to find a claim that is falsifiable when interpreted straightforwardly.
I'm not nitpicking. I'm explaining how Rowling was equivocating. Whether she was doing so through malice or ignorance I'm choosing not to speculate on.

As for finding a better claim, it was you who singled that bit out, not me, because you thought it was an easy way to dismiss the entire rebuttal.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 24th June 2020 at 05:41 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 05:21 AM   #266
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Women with Swyer's symdrome and CAIS women do not produce sperm.
Oh well in that case disregard my claim of CAIS women being either male or neither, I was operating under the assumption that they produce infertile sperm as per Giordano's earlier claim to that effect:
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
They have internal testis. They produce sperm, although infertile ones (as do many cis men).
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 24th June 2020, 05:26 AM   #267
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then infertile people are neither?
Wrong. Once again, it is a case of confusing necessary versus sufficient conditions.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 24th June 2020 at 05:42 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 24th June 2020, 05:34 AM   #268
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then infertile people are neither?
And? Infertile people aren't even human. By the definition of species, an organism is a member of a species iff it can successfully reproduce with at least one other member of that species. Infertile people can't reproduce with any humans, therefor they are not members of the human species.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 24th June 2020, 05:36 AM   #269
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That's really quite derisive and insulting, by the way.
"I'm going to assume your default setting is 'rapist.'"
"Can you... like not do that?"
"*Gasps* Well that is rather derisive, don't you think?"
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 24th June 2020, 05:41 AM   #270
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
A person who has a penis and an XY chromosome who "identifies" as a woman is a completely different discussion than actual legit intersexual medical conditions like being brought up.

There's a difference between simply "a short person" and a person who is short because they actually have a dwarfism type medical condition but neither of them are a 6 foot 4 person who "identifies as short."

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2020 at 05:43 AM.
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 24th June 2020, 05:43 AM   #271
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,758
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
No, they are not one or the other for the many reasons I stated. And intersex states are one reason they are not one or the other.
Simply repeating that you've stated something does not demonstrate that the statement is correct.

If you think intersex people are not one or the other, you have been misinformed.

Quote:
As I stated several times the idea we should only be talking about sex and not gender is meant as a distraction.
No one said that. My point is that you are confusing the two with your argument. As I've already stated.

Furthermore, the distinction between sex and gender was minimal until very recently. Changing a definition does not change the reality of what the word represents.

Quote:
We are discussing the proper place in society of trans individuals
I think we agree that the answer to that is "whatever trans individual want", up to a reasonable degree.

Quote:
that really relates to gender identification.
Only if you define "gender" as "gender identity", which is silly.

Quote:
Namely gender, and even sex, are not binary. Like it or not. Say it isn’t true over and over again. But the biology is very clear as I explained above.
Your explanation was incorrect. That's what you refuse to understand.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 24th June 2020, 05:44 AM   #272
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,918
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Wrong. Once again, it is a case of confusing necessary versus sufficient conditions.
Then can you rephrase the following to make it inclusive of infertile people?

Quote:
If person A and person B are capable of engaging in sexual intercourse with the result that person B becomes pregnant, then person A is a male and person B is a female.
Remember, the goal here is to define "male" and "female" in a way that is unequivocal, clear, and which includes every human being on the planet.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 05:50 AM   #273
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Women with Swyer's symdrome and CAIS women do not produce sperm. Anyone who produces sperm is male. Certainly there are males who do not produce sperm, but sperm production is an absolute definer of being of the male sex. Read the "DrFondOfBeetles" thread again.
As I stated from the beginning, women with CAIS have internal testis and undergo spermatogenesis, but produce immature sperm that are not fertile. The latter very similar to the situation prior to puberty in boys.

Are they kind- of - males by the sex test? Perhaps somewhere in the non binary zone of the sex spectrum? Or are prepubescent boys not males?

Last edited by Giordano; 24th June 2020 at 05:59 AM.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 05:59 AM   #274
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
All philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act of 2010.
No. The act only protects the subset of philosophical beliefs which are considered "worthy of respect in a democratic society" (as determined by the judge) and which do not adversely impact other people's fundamental rights. There are plenty of sincerely held philosophical beliefs which fail either or both of these tests, a few of which we've seen typed out in this very thread.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
As for finding a better claim, it was you who singled that bit out, not me, because you thought it was an easy way to dismiss the entire rebuttal.
Had you ever previously bothered to quote something Rowling wrote which you considered specifically debunked, I need not have bothered picking a specific point of contention.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2020 at 06:03 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 24th June 2020, 06:02 AM   #275
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
A person who has a penis and an XY chromosome who "identifies" as a woman is a completely different discussion than actual legit intersexual medical conditions like being brought up.

There's a difference between simply "a short person" and a person who is short because they actually have a dwarfism type medical condition but neither of them are a 6 foot 4 person who "identifies as short."
What about a person who was 6'4" but got into an accident and lost both legs and is now 3'8"? Are they allowed to consider themselves short? Use the reserved-for-the-short-people booster seat at the restaurant? Or is that "unearned privilege" and "invading short spaces"? Does their very existence serve as an insult to the precious feelings of the "natally short"?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 24th June 2020, 06:07 AM   #276
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,918
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
No. The act only protects the subset of philosophical beliefs which are considered "worthy of respect in a democratic society" (as determined by the judge) and which do not adversely impact other people's fundamental rights. There are plenty of sincerely held philosophical beliefs which fail either or both of these tests.
You do realise that what you linked to agrees with what i've said, and not with you, right? The section heading you linked to is literally "What qualifies as a philosophical belief?" Not "What qualifies as a protected philosophical belief?". Not "Which philosophical beliefs are protected?". "What qualifies as a philosophical belief?".

Legally, the term "philosophical belief" has a precise meaning, and all philosophical beliefs are protected speech. The links that both you and I have provided concur on this.

Using the term "philosophical belief" in its non-legal sense when talking about a legal ruling on whether or not something is a philosophical belief is equivocation.

Quote:
Had you ever previously bothered to quote something Rowling wrote which you considered specifically debunked, I need not have bothered picking a specific point of contention.
Oh, well, I guess you're wholly justified in hand-waving away the deconstruction of it and pretending like everything Rowling said was entirely accurate and fair. That's some rigorous sceptical thinking, right there.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 24th June 2020 at 06:09 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 06:09 AM   #277
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,179
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
As I stated from the beginning, women with CAIS have internal testis and undergo spermatogenesis, but produce immature sperm that are not fertile. The latter very similar to the situation prior to puberty in boys.

Are they kind- of - males by the sex test? Perhaps somewhere in the non binary zone of the sex spectrum? Or are prepubescent boys not males?

No they don't. You are mistaken about the features of CAIS.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 24th June 2020, 06:10 AM   #278
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What about a person who was 6'4" but got into an accident and lost both legs and is now 3'8"? Are they allowed to consider themselves short? Use the reserved-for-the-short-people booster seat at the restaurant? Or is that "unearned privilege" and "invading short spaces"? Does their very existence serve as an insult to the precious feelings of the "natally short"?
Yes because the double amputee 3'8" person is actually short.

A person walking on their knees like Dorf (crap there's a deep cut reference I'm sure everyone is going to get) because they see themselves as a "short person trapped in the body of a tall person" is not actually short.

"Short" is a descriptive term, not a political party. Words mean things.

That's a thing by the way, transabled people who like perfectly normal working legs but use wheelchairs because their "body image" is that of a disabled person. I'd love to know why that's different.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2020 at 06:15 AM.
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 24th June 2020, 06:12 AM   #279
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,375
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What about a person who was 6'4" but got into an accident and lost both legs and is now 3'8"? Are they allowed to consider themselves short? Use the reserved-for-the-short-people booster seat at the restaurant? Or is that "unearned privilege" and "invading short spaces"? Does their very existence serve as an insult to the precious feelings of the "natally short"?
You picked a strange example for this discussion. What sort of accident to you imagine can turn a man into a woman, or vice versa?

I also wasn't aware of exclusive "short spaces" that tall people were trying to gain access to. But I guess there's a kink for everything.
__________________
"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 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 24th June 2020, 06:16 AM   #280
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Using the term "philosophical belief" in its non-legal sense when talking about a legal ruling on whether or not something is a philosophical belief is equivocation.
Not at all, if it is clear from context that the author meant "philosophical belief" in the usual rather than legal sense.

Again, here is what Rowling wrote:
"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Now let's substitute in either the usual or the legal interpretation of the phrase.

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the sense protected under British law) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the general sense of the phrase) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Only one of these interpretations makes any sense, the other is hopelessly tautological. You are deliberately choosing the wrong one in order to make Rowling seem malicious or incompetent.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2020 at 06:21 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
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 03:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.