You had to add two words to change the meaning of my quote, is that proving a point or just deliberate misconstruction?
It's proving a point. You are trying to generate fear based on hypotheticals to generate support for your prejudices.
It's the exact same tactic segregationists used in the 60s.
I don’t really know the answer but I don’t see why women should have to lose their rights.
I hear this argument again and again. Can you explain to me exactly what rights woman are losing?
And then can you explain to me how these rights are so critical that maintaining them is preferable to transgender people being subjected to actual (not hypothetical) violence?
I challenge you to explain to me why gender conforming men should not be allowed to use womens bathrooms. What good reason is there to segregate men from women?
A very good question and one I don't really know the answer to. I've been to plenty of bars and cafes that didn't have gender segregated bathrooms and they weren't considered hotspots for sexual deviants. They were just where you went to pee. I think the world would be a better place if we considered bathrooms a place to pee rather than the cradle of women's rights.
You didn't answer my question. Will intersex people be forced to use your third bathrooms or will you make an exception for them? How will you ensure no intersex people are sneaking into the wrong bathroom?
Molgrips mentioned working “to educate and inform people” but that didn’t have a great record of success back in 2016 now, did it.
Are you talking about brexit? Labour and remain candidates conservatives failed to educate anyone, poss. deliberate on conservatives side. On social media we called the leavers thick twits and look where that got us. The other side used technology to change how people think.
The fundamental component that you’re continually missing is that sometimes we need unequal rights.
I'm not missing it, I have acknowledged it, mentioned how I used to believe it, and pointed out that since this project began in earnest, things have got demonstrably worse.
You have two pound coins in your pocket and are with a homeless person and Jacob Rees Mogg, do you equally give them one each or do you fairly give both to the homeless woman?
Part of the solution to this is universal basic income. I know you know about it, and I am convinced I have seen you advocate it, I am off to find the threads now. This would put a pound coin into rees moggs pocket, but so what. If it costs that to shut him up I am all for it.
I am 100% for equity, but the problem is that we cannot convince the trumpers and torys of that. We are failing. I am viewing this from a pragmatic point of view. The current methods are driving voters to the right.
Re crime rates. This is part of the evidence.
Trans women an crime 1973 to 2003.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
From the summary of findings:
The study can be divided into two cohorts 1973-1988 and 1989-2003 with the difference being that the latter cohort received adequate mental health provision. The findings show that transsexual individuals were more likely to be criminal than non-transsexuals of the same birth sex in the first cohort (1973-1988), and no different from their birth sex in the second group (1989-2003).
Now I have a more sympathetic view of this in that I think that given the oppression, social, financial, cultural etc that trans person experience then they are more likely to commit crimes so that should dull the figures, but I am not sure by how much.
The sex figures are much worse and I'll not post them here as its ridiculously incendiary.
A very good question and one I don’t really know the answer to. I’ve been to plenty of bars and cafes that didn’t have gender segregated bathrooms and they weren’t considered hotspots for sexual deviants. They were just where you went to pee. I think the world would be a better place if we considered bathrooms a place to pee rather than the cradle of women’s rights.
This is my third space, its not for trans or intersex or any one group, its for everyone. Which also answers your question.
I had never proposed it was for trans only, none of us could ever bolt down a definition, given the issues there are around defining men and women..
I would prefer women in the mens as they keep the peace, it would be a good thing. Try convincing women to share a toilet with men though..
This is my third space, its not for trans or intersex or any one group, its for everyone. Which also answers your question.
So you mean have one toilet and one changing room rather than two? Or do you mean have three rather than two?
Or have two but one is open and one is for cisgender non-intersex women only?
I said third space for a reason. There are three.
However I dunno about you (I'm assuming male sex, please correct me), but as a bloke, I don't care who comes into my bathroom.and I said I would welcome the ladies, it would make men cleaner and less aggressive. I hate the mens loos. But female sexed persons dearly like to have a single sex space. Who am I to deny them, so I'd be fine with two, but if other men feel the need to have their own space who am I to deny them either.
(In fact the mens loos is a whole thing about wondering what non binary means - I was told to be a man when I was bullied in the loos at school, but I already had decided that two wrongs don't make a right, I did try hitting back and had success, but it still felt wrong. I decided the concept of man was bunkem at a young age.
I wear jeans and tshirts cos they are comfy, I couldn't care less about looking good so suits, or dresses, heels, etc or any clothes that are used to define people have no use or meaning to me. )
However, I'd be interested to hear your solution?
@5plusn8. This page of the thread looks like a bit of a pile-on after re-reading it. Sorry, Are you all good?
I am sorry about this and I don’t think you should have to go to the mens either. I advocate for third or unisex space.
A dedicated third space would physically Other and ostracise people who just want to be accepted as "normal". And potentially make people easy targets for people like Sophie Lancaster's killers.
Turn that around. Why not do away with gendered bogs and just have toilets? [EDIT: the discussion has moved on, I see you've clarified this now]
They've done this at Manchester Uni and it works well, there are still gendered toilets if you really want / need them but the vast majority are just toilets. Ie, I suppose your 'third space' is actually the 'first space'.
Sorry, Are you all good?
Thanks Nick, but its all good. We mowed Cougar over the page before so...
If I post something I expect it to be challenged, I am here to learn. Everyone has been pleasant. Lets continue.
Turn that around. Why not do away with gendered bogs and just have toilets? [EDIT: the discussion has moved on, I see you’ve clarified this now]
They’ve done this at Manchester Uni and it works well, there are still gendered toilets if you really want / need them but the vast majority are just toilets. Ie, I suppose your ‘third space’ is actually the ‘first space’.
I worked in an office with this single lockable cubicles and a shared washhand space. The washhand space was quite visible from the hallway. I thought it was very good.
IF women sexed people accept this, I am good. Its not my call is it.
My basic point is that anyone who wants a protected space deserves one, I don't think anyone else should be allowed to invade that space. I think this is equity right?
Are you talking about brexit? Labour and remain candidates failed to educate anyone. The other side used technology to change how people think.
I'm talking about the referendum campaigns. "Labour and Remain" failed to educate anyone because they failed to realise that many people didn't want educating. "The other side" didn't change how people think, they reinforced what they were already thinking. That's why Leave won, they went "yep, you're absolutely right, it's all the fault of foreigners, we need to leave the EU so that we can send all the ****stanis back home" and all the racist gammons went "cool, I'm down for a bit of that."
The point / relevance to this discourse here is: Remain appealed to the head, Leave appealed to the heart. And if feeling and emotion trumps thinking and reasoning then you're screwed, "we've had enough of experts" remember? How do we educate these people when in the same breath we're championing ignorance? Mol's notion of providing information is laudable but ultimately you're playing chess with a pigeon. "Facts" don't change minds. Fact.
this project began in earnest, things have got demonstrably worse.
What "project", sorry?
Part of the solution to this is universal basic income.
There's a gif somewhere that I can't be arsed to google, which shows "you" and "the point". Let me try again:
Re crime rates. This is part of the evidence.
Trans women an crime 1973 to 2003.
Yet you specifically said: "Its a fact that male sexed trans persons commit sexual crime at the same rate as male sex." Where are you getting 'sexual' from? Is that not a tad disingenuous?
That article is in two parts. The first draws a parallel between crime in males and in TG females. The second talks about sexual offences, for which there are 13234 men and 76 TG women detained.
I'm not sure as you can really conclude anything valuable here from the information as presented (and I don't think I care sufficiently to go digging through raw data for hours). The incidence of sexual convictions for TG women as a percentage is considerably higher than that of men by birth but what does that actually mean? That TG women are more rapey (an obvious barrier here presents itself, how many TG women have penises?); that men are more likely to commit a range of other crimes, lowering the percentage of sexual offences; that the courts are more likely to send down someone who presents differently; something else? Is it legitimate to directly compare a sample size of 78,781 people with another sample size of 129? L'Oreal is on the phone, they want you for their next marketing campaign.
Percentages are slippery things and I do not believe that your article bears out what you're asserting. Sorry.
My basic point is that anyone who wants a protected space deserves one, I don’t think anyone else should be allowed to invade that space. I think this is equity right?
Ye-es but... it's your definition of 'anyone else' that's a little sketchy. Do you literally mean "anyone" or just those who don't match your definitions? The concept of an "exclusive shared space" is where it all gets a bit complicated.
I've always thought that the folk in that equality-equity cartoon would be better off just paying for seats. Then they wouldn't have to **** about with boxes.
IF women sexed people accept this, I am good. Its not my call is it.
Your wording is interesting. What exactly do you mean by 'women sexed'?
I can only assume that you mean cisgendered women. Does this mean that a women sexed bathroom would exclude transgender women? Would it also exclude intersex women?
If you are including intersex women how are you going to police it? Is the criteria for 'women sexed' that they appear female from the outside but haven't had surgery to change their appearance?
Or is it merely that they appear female from the outside regardless of whether they have had surgery or not?
Or are you going to go the birth certificate route?
I’ve always thought that the folk in that equality-equity cartoon would be better off just paying for seats. Then they wouldn’t have to **** about with boxes.
🤣 There are many, many variants of that cartoon. I think the one I posted is the original but who knows any more.
I can only assume that you mean cisgendered women. Does this mean that a women sexed bathroom would exclude transgender women? Would it also exclude intersex women?
Single-sex female only provision (inclusive of transmen) and and 'open' provision. Same in sport, though transmen would likely fall foul of anti-doping measures...
...policing, in sports, chromosomes as a first pass then an appeal route for exceptions. Toilets as now, tolerance and the ability overtly police, challenge and exclude as necessary.
P.S. In my opinion using males and females with differences in sexual development (intersex) in your gendered argument is abhorrent.
or unisex space.
This seems to be the answer to the toilet question. Do away entirely with multiple occupancy public toilets in favour of a single occupant toilet anyone can use.
P.S. In my opinion using males and females with differences in sexual development (intersex) in your gendered argument is abhorrent.
OK. Any explanation to go along with that?
…policing, in sports, chromosomes as a first pass then an appeal route for exceptions. Toilets as now, tolerance and the ability overtly police, challenge and exclude as necessary.
Sports is very complex, very much an outlier, and not something I overly care about. This is pretty much the Oscar Pistorius debate in a new frock. (Bloody hell, he was a murder too! Makes you think.)
Toilets however. "overtly police, challenge and exclude", eh, what? Do you think that happens currently? There is absolutely nothing stopping me from strolling into a women's public toilets right now beyond a little sign on the door (and my own moral compass and the fact that I'm sat at home some distance from public toilets so can't).
Have you never been to a concert or a nightclub? There's often more women in the gents' bogs than in the ladies'. Not so worried about men in dresses when they've dropped six pints of Strongbow Dark Fruits in two hours and need a piss, it seems.
This is a wholly fictional issue fabricated purely to beat down a minority. Can we all just stop it already? It's bullshit and it's offensive.
Toilets as now, tolerance and the ability overtly police, challenge and exclude as necessary.
You mean like this?
If so I think your argument that it's to make women feel safer is looking a bit ropey.
re brexit.
I see understand and have considered your point. I know all about "we have all had enough of experts" this was a planned war on rationality. We agree on all that.
The difference in our opinion here is that you think people could not be persuaded, and I think they could. If you are right, why are you bothering to even discuss this topic here? why bother trying to convince the brexiteers of anything. I don't actually think that a huge percentage of the pop is rascist, which is what your position insinuates, more that they were persuaded of it and many could be persuaded back..
Were the majority of 1930-45 germans antismeites> I don't think so, but they were persuaded to be antisemitic. I have more faith in humanity.. please don't argue I am wrong...
I don't believe you, and I do not believe that targeted marketing carried out on facebook was not done for a reason. That reason being to change peoples minds. Ca and all the leave technical people are the loreals of the politics world, they have studied exactly how to get people where they want them.
re UBI - you are against this then? Single image memes mean nothing. Its a complex issue. The image is a great illustration of one aspect of equity, but equity does not mean communism does it?
re crime rates. Your accusation of disingenuousness is unfair. I deliberately left out the sex figures because they are shocking. Half of transwomen prisoners are sex offenders. 2,8% of people in UK with a GRC are offenders, thats 10 times more than the male percentage. (all over 18s)
I personally do not think genuine gender non conforming or trans people are any more criminal in general or more rapey. I think the GRA was a clarion call for some dangerous individuals to take advantage. The GRA needs revision.
I cannot see any strong evidence that trans people are more criminal or rapey than the normal population. My point was the TW sex offend at similar rates to men, well in fact its way more.
EG 2004 -2018 approx 5k people applied for GRC under the 2004 GRA.
I dunno how many are male or female, but lets assume they are all transwomen.
In 2018 there were 129 TW in the women's estate, assuming they must have a GRC then 2.58% (129/5000) of the population are in prison, or 1.3% (129/2500) of the TW pop are in prison.
Of men there are 0.3% of the population in prison and women are 0.013% of population in prison.
The trans pop is over represented in prison full stop. I imagine as discussed before that there are many extenuating circumstances due to social and financial pressure.
However because 58% of the TW in the womens estate are sex offenders.
You can either say that of the 129 transwomen in the womens prison estate, 76 of them transitioned for the purposes of perpetuating sexual assault. Or trans offenders are more likely to be sex offenders.
Thats all the data we have, should we draw no conclusion?
I am suspicious that really trans people are not rapey, but rapey aresholes use the GRA to commit further crimes.
Single-sex female only provision (inclusive of transmen)
many feminists would reject this provision
policing, in sports, chromosomes as a first pass then an appeal route for exceptions
Personally I'm in favour of Open category, and Women as a broad brush, based on timing / weight (whatever) but given the teeny numbers of trans/intersex athletes, I think an argument for a case by case decisions is probably justifiable
Sorry, let me reword that slightly - 'tolerance, having the ability to challenge and if necessary the ability to police and exclude'. Hope that is clearer.
If you are including intersex women how are you going to police it?
This is a non argument, do we check birth certs now or anything else, did we ever? No.
Toilets are policed by consent, that's all, TBH all policing is by consent. However, if we set the legal framework then most people of any stripe can navigate consent. Anyway I was orignally talking about all womens spaces, it was Brucee who kept coming back to the loos, what about rape shelters or womens shelters?
clark said: Sorry, let me reword that slightly – ‘tolerance, having the ability to challenge and if necessary the ability to police and exclude’. Hope that is clearer.
exactly, which really just leads to mutual consent.
@brucewee I do not agree that transwomen are women (sex) so that's the point. I think that's probably our real disagreement here?
many feminists would reject this provision
agreed. However, they seemed invisible in this discussion and merit attention.
agreed. However, they seemed invisible in this discussion and merit attention.
Umm not by me, thats kinda my whole point here...
If women had not been oppressed/raped/ruled by men (and other women) for so long and still are, I don't think any of this discussion would have happened, ever.
Single-sex female only provision (inclusive of transmen)
You meant trans women there, right? That was just a typo? Trans women generally want to use women's toilets, not trans men.
(WTF is the obsession with toilets anyway?)
This is pretty much the Oscar Pistorius debate in a new frock. (Bloody hell, he was a murder too! Makes you think.)
I think this is miles off, as you know in para-sports then everyone is categorised, the argument was what is his category? Almost impossible to solve.
should we categorise transwomen in womens sport, starting with no of years physical development as a post pubescent male for example?
@clarkpm4242. Yes sorry I get you now, agreed. Transmen allowed to use womens toilets.
(WTF is the obsession with toilets anyway?)
Because the vast majority of public toilets are binary.
(This includes pubs, restaurants, shopping centres, cinemas, theatres, libraries, supermarkets)
If you are non binary you often have literally nowhere to go without risking either violence or upsetting someone. This is probably the main reason which puts me off going out whilst presenting as anything other than male. On more than one occasion I've ended up seriously dehydrated as I won't dink anything to avoid the issue.
I'd be really happy to see non gender specific toilets as described above.
@brucewee I do not agree that transwomen are women (sex) so that’s the point. I think that’s probably our real disagreement here?
I think the crux of our disagreement is the question of whether biological sex is a binary thing or not. You seem to think it is whereas I disagree and so does science.
As we saw earlier people get very upset if you utter trangender and intersex in the same breath but I think the reason for that is that when you start looking at intersex people many of the arguments against trans rights start to fall apart.
Being intersex is seen as being a disease or a disability. Intersex children are being subjected to unnecessary medical procedures for no other reason than the accepted wisdom in society is that biological sex is binary and anything else is shameful somehow.
Intersex is not a disease or disability. It is a perfectly natural and healthy. In some cases there may be a need for some type of medical intervention for health reasons but most people can live full normal lives. Except, of course, for the pressure society puts on them to conform.
What many people will now say is that intersex has absolutely nothing to do with transgender and I am abhorrent for even mentioning them together.
I'll be the first to admit I cannot relate to transgender people at all. I'm not sure if it's because my internal sense of gender matches my biological sex so well that I've never had even a hint of doubt (I tried to find a way of saying that so it didn't come across as 'I'm so manly' but I failed so sorry about that) so I have absolutely no idea what it feels like to be transgender.
Doesn't mean I don't believe it's a real thing.
It's a myth that biological sex is binary. Sex is a combination of factors including your external genitalia, hormones, genetics, and possibly brain function. The last one is obviously controversial. I used to believe that gender differences were entirely down to societies expectations but now I'm not so sure.
Society's obsession with cramming everyone into a binary categorisation is not science based no matter how much some would like it to be.
I think this is miles off, as you know in para-sports then everyone is categorised, the argument was what is his category? Almost impossible to solve.
Oh, am I misremembering? I thought the controversy was that he wasn't competing in para-sports, he was competing against able-bodied athletes with bloody great springs on his legs?
If you are non binary you often have literally nowhere to go without risking either violence or upsetting someone.
Sorry, I meant this the other way around; what's the obsession with toilets from binary people? The entire contra-arguement seems to be built on 'yes but toilets'. Which, as you say, is fairly readily fixable given sufficient budget and floorspace.
It’s a myth that biological sex is binary. Sex is a combination of factors including your external genitalia, hormones, genetics, and possibly brain function. The last one is obviously controversial. I used to believe that gender differences were entirely down to societies expectations but now I’m not so sure.
Society’s obsession with cramming everyone into a binary categorisation is not science based no matter how much some would like it to be.
I've seen that video. I've studied this a lot, maybe as much as you and I don't think I or science agree. Ha. Typical.
I thought the controversy was that he wasn’t competing in para-sports, he was competing against able-bodied athletes with bloody great springs on his legs?
Oh that, well its an obvious non sequiter, he is a cyborg and has an advantage over men.
Is the the fastest man on the planet? Yes?
Is he the fastest able bodied man on the planet? No.
This reminds me of Andy Murrays comment about the greatest tennis player - he was asked if Federer was the greatest tennis player ever. Andy reminded her that he was the greatest male tennis player ever, as Serena had won more grand slams and title and gold medals. Sure if Federer had a match against her he would win, but that's not the point is it. Murray became one of my fave british sports people that day.
There's at least six biological sexes not including the ones that will kill you.
There’s at least six biological sexes not including the ones that will kill you.
Others in science argue that they all fall under male and female, and so what, because you can't change any of them. Hence a Sex5 cannot become a Sex 1, like a male cannot become a female. Thats why the argument is a red herring.
Which, as you say, is fairly readily fixable given sufficient budget and floorspace.
Which was my argument from the beginning, you agree now then?
I’ve seen that video. I’ve studied this a lot, maybe as much as you and I don’t think I or science agree. Ha. Typical.
I find it interesting that you did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that sex is entirely binary.
Can you point me in the direction of some of the material you read?
you said
I think the crux of our disagreement is the question of whether biological sex is a binary thing or not. You seem to think it is whereas I disagree and so does science.
It is not the thrust of my argument, I am happy to be convinced there is more than one sex, so I don't want to discuss as it as I do not think it is real vent to my position
The crux of our argument is that I do not believe that you can change a male sexed person into a female sexed person.
Can you show me that a male sexed person can change into a female sexed person?
The difference in our opinion here is that you think people could not be persuaded, and I think they could.
And for one million pounds,
How?
I tried for four years. I tried facts, I tried empathy, I tried relating, I tried pleading, I tried arguing. Nothing works. One of three things happens:
1) They get angry and abusive,
2) They change the subject,
3) They go quiet.
Every. Single. Gods. Damned. Time.
An oft-presented argument is that you won't change people's minds by calling them names. Which I don't disagree with. But I say to you, what else have you got?
What would it take to change your mind? To those who have all the answers, what would it take to change mine?
If you are right, why are you bothering to even discuss this topic here?
Who knows.
I don’t actually think that a huge percentage of the pop is rascist, which is what your position insinuates, more that they were persuaded of it and many could be persuaded back..
With a side order of "how?" again,
I disagree. You cannot stop people being racist by presenting a convincing point in an argument any more than you can convert a Christian by highlighting inconsistencies in the Bible. Because at a very base, fundamental human level,
I have more faith in humanity.. please don’t argue I am wrong…
It is not possible to logically argue with faith.
I don’t believe you, and I do not believe that targeted marketing carried out on facebook was not done for a reason.
Read that back.
"targeted marketing"
I'm well aware of CA's machinations. But in a propaganda war you don't target people who disagree with you, they're already a lost cause. Rather you target people who are unsure or who already may be in agreement and then you shore up those ideas.
The purpose of the social media campaigns weren't to change opinions, it was to reinforce them. And it was wildly successful. Meanwhile Remain was standing there going "well, I think you'll find..." like Mr Logic out of Viz. Didn't work, was never going to, but the logical were too logical to ever be able to relate to emotional.
re UBI – you are against this then?
TBH I'm against a distracting non sequitur which is irrelevant to the discussion. It was just an analogy, I could equally well have said apples instead of pound coins, that doesn't mean we suddenly need an analysis of Taunton cider exports.
re crime rates. Your accusation of disingenuousness is unfair. I deliberately left out the sex figures because they are shocking.
You claimed one thing and provided evidence of something different. That's disingenuous.
Half of transwomen prisoners are sex offenders.
...
Or trans offenders are more likely to be sex offenders.
And I've already answered this but we'll try again. So what? Is it not equally valid to conclude from that "trans women are less likely to commit non-sexual crimes"?
Thats all the data we have, should we draw no conclusion?
If we have insufficient data then absolutely, yes. Otherwise we're into the arena of "making shit up because we don't know" again. That's how cults get started.
I am suspicious that really trans people are not rapey, but rapey aresholes use the GRA to commit further crimes.
No they don't.
Couldn't give a toss about your "suspicions," sorry. That's how we get into these brexity type messes, "well, I don't know, but I feel..." and you're skating dangerously close to encouraging hate speech. Don't care, prove it.
My equally unverified suspicion is that rapey aresholes will be rapey aresholes with or without the GRA and no longer oppressing a minority won't change that one jot. No rapey arsehole in the history of rapey aresholes was ever prevented from going into women's toilets to be a rapey areshole because of a sign on the door, ever. Wearing a frock or not.
Others in science argue
So there isn't in fact an established consensus "science" answer then?
Which was my argument from the beginning, you agree now then?
Depends on your argument and I've already answered this. We're going round in circles now.
If your argument is "let's have a third 'other' facility for the non-conformists" then I reject that absolutely. It's dangerous.
If your argument is "let's just have non-specific toilets generally, with a small provision of gendered for those who really need it" or indeed just lots of individual toilet spaces rather than a shared area, I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not wholly sure which of the two you're championing TBH.
HOWEVER THIS IS A RED HERRING< YOUCANNOT CHANGE THEM. It determined in your DNA.
You haven't read the whole thread, have you. I countered this pages back.
TL;DR, a) those three genes can stop working and b) it's more complicated than just DNA in isolation.
Because the vast majority of public toilets are binary.
Well....
The crux of our argument is that I do not believe that you can change a male sexed person into a female sexed person.
If you were 100% male or 100% female why would you want to change your sex or gender?
Intersex people and many if not most transgender people do not fall into this binary classification.
I don't think I fully understand where you are coming from so can you answer me this; do you or do you not accept that there are people who are non-binary in terms of biological sex?
Can you show me that a male sexed person can change into a female sexed person?
Again, we've - I've - answered this already.
There are situations where genitalia doesn't form properly at birth and the sex of a child is ambiguous. This is - rightly or wrongly - treated as a medical emergency and surgery is undertaken to assign a sex. This is almost universally to 'boy', the phrase I read was "it's easier to create a pole than a hole" though I do wonder how much the patriarchy is at play here.
What if this was undertaken to a baby who turned out to be biologically female? They don't do DNA tests before performing a slapadicktomy. Now what?
That's just one scenario, there's plenty of others. You can deny it exists all you like but it doesn't change reality.
Complicated, isn't it. Who'd a thunk it.
If you were 100% male or 100% female why would you want to change your sex or gender?
You are conflating sex and gender. Your sex is an immutable biological trait.
do you or do you not accept that there are people who are non-binary in terms of biological sex?
Maybe some intersex people, but it can't be changed, which is why they should not be "fixed" by medicine, they are what they are.
This is – rightly or wrongly – treated as a medical emergency and surgery is undertaken to assign a sex. This is almost universally to ‘boy’, the phrase I read was “it’s easier to create a pole than a hole” though I do wonder how much the patriarchy is at play here.
What if this was undertaken to a baby who turned out to be biologically female? They don’t do DNA tests before performing a slapadicktomy. Now what?
That’s just one scenario, there’s plenty of others. You can deny it exists all you like but it doesn’t change reality.
The assignment is irrelevant, you can't change their dna, or sex, even if it is ambiguous. No amount of hormones or surgery will do this.
it is the cart before the horse.
So what?
You can't change DNA (trivially, something something gene therapy something). But birth-determined/assigned sex can be wrong. So you can absolutely be born a boy when you are in fact a girl. Sexually, genetically. So,
Where do we go from here?
Why is the path unclear, when we know home is near?
Understand we'll go hand in hand, but we'll walk alone in fear.
There are situations where genitalia doesn’t form properly at birth and the sex of a child is ambiguous. This is – rightly or wrongly – treated as a medical emergency and surgery is undertaken to assign a sex. This is almost universally to ‘boy’, the phrase I read was “it’s easier to create a pole than a hole” though I do wonder how much the patriarchy is at play here.
Where did you get this from!? The only reason it would be an emergency is if there were associated problems e.g. ability to urinate, defaecate, exposed bowel. Also, there is not an equal distribution of sex ambiguity between males and females with differences in sexual development. Therefore the
interventions do not 'result' in a 50/50 outcome of sexes.
You are conflating sex and gender. Your sex is an immutable biological trait.
When you say 'biological trait' that suggests to me it is something that 100% of human beings possess. That's at odds with what you say here:
Maybe some intersex people, but it can’t be changed,
where you seem to accept that some people might not possess this binary classification.
Are you saying you can be Male, Female, or Intersex in terms of your biological sex?
In yes, how do you continue to argue that biological sex is a binary thing?
Where did you get this from!?
Something I read a while back, I'll see if I can find it again. Give me a little while and I'll get back to you, I need to go deal with real life for a bit.
Also, there is not an equal distribution of sex ambiguity between males and females with differences in sexual development.
How would you know if it's ambiguous?
