It’s offensive or extreme in its views. That includes petitions that attack, criticise or negatively focus on an individual or a group of people because of characteristics such as...gender identity.
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic though, and therefore should not be included in any way. The fact it is raises the alarm of who exactly is gatekeeping the process.
Indeed. Though I suspect it is listed as it is not a protected charateristic so that a petiton isn't raised which seeks to specifically attack gender identity, if you see what I mean. That clause isn;lt about protecting characterists, it is about stopping the abuse of the petition system. This petition does not attack gender identity or anything else so it should be ok.
So because it's not protected, they are protecting it? But the whole point is they should not be protecting gender identity if it's not a protected characteristic. Why not state flat earthers then? I think it will be fine. But if the nonsense that is gender identity is emphasised then can the process be trusted. It's just like Ofcom. They were displaying the 'progress' pride flag colours on Twitter. Hardly unbiased.
Good! Would love to have some of that sanity rub off onto Australia. “Sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate” should be "record of one's sex as falsified by a ridiculous document governments shouldn't be issuing" since sex is not being modified. It's not the government's job to validate the colour of your imaginary aura or your number of Thetans or the fact that you believe your body is made of glass...whole thing needs to be repealed as pandering lunacy.
A very finely worded question indeed. Worded so well, to answer 'yes' would be devastating. Put their feet to the fire of the Staniland question. Make them squirm.
Indeed. Expediency, getting elected, too often turns them into cowards and grifters.
Just reading "American Psychosis: How the Republican Party Went Crazy", largely as a result of pandering to various conspiracy theorists. Though the Democrats don't fare much better.
However and more particularly, Forstater isn't helping her cause all that much as her petition leaves hanging the question of exactly how we are going to define "biological sex".
See my recent comment here for some elaborations on the details -- and on the "devils" therein:
Not really. As I've argued here recently, it leaves hanging the question of how to define "female", "male", and "sex" itself in the first place.
The problem is largely that the TRAs and their "useful idiots" want to redefine the sexes to be spectra -- or are "socially constructed" -- as that "justifies" their claim that people can change sex.
Most people don't realize -- or don't want to face the facts -- that there's no intrinsic meaning to the words "female" and "male". We can define them however we want. But some definitions are more useful and scientifically justified than others; deciding which ones are trump is the crux of the matter, the question of the hour.
See my comment above. A WM Hll debate has no legislative power so at this stage a definition of sex is not required. If the debate did lead the government to amend the 2010 Act then they would of course have to include a definition of sex in the legislation.
I will watch this carefully from across the pond. For mind/body movement in the face of mass body dissociation, here's a link to new Ute Heggen YT channel, easy settling motions for coping with anxiety and stress, as well as for balance, aging, wellbeing. All that stuff the shrinks are being paid for. Plus, butterfly shorts from this summer's garden! Thanks for the live, GL, HS and AM~
I bought myself a Suffragette T shirt...it is my silent protest. I wore it into the bowels of my son's Scottish High school to no ones chargrin. So caught up in their own flags they don't see mine.
I have signed and will encourage others. NOTE such petitions only allow for a debate in Westminster Hall not the House of Commons or Lords. These debates have no formal legislative powers. Neither are MPs obliged to attend or vote, or are 'whipped ' by their political parties to do so. Their sole function is bas to highlight particular issues and bring them to the attention of MPs and Lords and the wider public. A good thing as for many of our legislators the issue is not understood. Therefore the issue about how we legally define sex does not really matter at this stage. If the publicity of this petition and hopefully a debate in WM Hall does make the government take action, than a legal definition would be included in any ammendment to the 2010 Act.
Interesting though somewhat "unfortunate" that such debates don't entail much in the way of legal obligations on the part of government. Though, as you say, at least they draw attention to the issue.
But I wonder what sort of "legal definition for the sexes" the courts are using now -- if any. As I had indicated in a previous comment, it seems there's something of a famous case -- Corbett vs Corbett -- from 1970 that had suggested that "the law should adopt the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests", though I haven't seen anything about what those tests would consist of:
However, as I've indicated there, part of the problem with the ad hoc definitions apparently used now and suggested by the Corbett case is that they're based on little more than folk-biology and are rather unscientific at best. In addition to which, they conflict rather badly with the standard definitions endorsed by several reputable biological journals (Theoretical Biology, & Molecular Human Reproduction), as well as by Oxford Dictionaries, and by the Oxford Dictionary of Biology. While those latter definitions are more or less essential to the whole of biology -- not least in understanding the evolution of sexual dimorphism over several hundred million years and in millions of species -- they tend to be of limited use for any of the gatekeeping jobs that society is trying to press them into doing.
Maybe some reason to deprecate or abandon the use of "sex" itself, at least for most gatekeeping purposes. Something that the New England Journal of Medicine more or less agrees with by arguing in favour of changing birth certificates so that "sex" is in a less salient position. Even if their "reasons" for doing so -- not "offending" the intersex and transgendered -- are something of a joke:
Sad state of affairs when a supposedly reputable medical and scientific organization puts feelings before facts.
Given that conflict, we might be wise to recognize that, for one example, the de facto criteria for access to toilets and changes rooms isn't sex itself but genitalia, and change the laws accordingly: one set of loos for the penis-havers and one set for the vagina-havers, or reasonable facsimiles thereof in both cases. Squabbling over definitions often seems little more than a Lilliputian civil war over egg-cracking protocols which serves only to muddy the waters and preclude an honest assessment of the facts of the matter.
Well I amnot a lawyer, medic or biologists so cannot really make the definition. Of course so e men don't have penises as a result of birth deformities or illnesses and accidents causing amputation..but they are otherwise maleand shoukd be allowed to usemale facilities. So it is complicated - it may have to take onto account chromonal differences etc..
Sorry for the delay in responding; too many irons in the fire.
But I'm likewise neither a lawyer, medic nor a biologist -- just a retired electronics technologist trying to get a handle on the transgender issue, trying to use solid principles of logic and biology to separate wheat and chaff. 🙂
Tough slog, particularly since most people have prior commitments to various "articles of faith" -- particularly when it comes to sex and gender which tends to preclude much in the way of rational discussion. Relative to the latter, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright noted several years ago that there are several different definitions for "gender" in play:
"1/ Most confusion about 'gender' results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
We can't possibly have rational discussions if so many are using quite different and contradictory definitions for the same term. This is of course in the context of US-centric debates on the topic, but a clip from a Jon Stewart Apple TV segment showed that Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, was clearly quite certain that "sex" and "gender" are synonymous and that there are two and only two of them, while Stewart, more credibly, sees gender as a synonym for a broad range, a spectrum, a multitude of behavioural stereotypes:
Though where Stewart goes off the rails and into the weeds is apparently in arguing that sex itself is also a spectrum. Which conflicts rather badly with far more scientifically justified biological definitions as I had noted in a previous comment.
A real dog's breakfast, a case of everyone riding madly off in all directions. Bit of a sad joke in fact, a mix of the Keystone Cops, Rape of the Lock -- Part Deux, and a Lilliputian civil war over egg-cracking protocols. Largely why I'm arguing in favour of falling back on the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- those endorsed by reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- as a starting point, as a common reference point. Don't think we can have much in the way of progress on the transgender issue without that.
Really great to see some 31,400 signatures already.
However, while I wish all the luck in the world to Maya Forstater and Sex Matters on that petition, the fly in the ointment, of many, is just exactly what they think "biological sex" actually means. Expect most MPs haven't a clue themselves, or how to go about reaching a conclusion.
There was a court case in the UK some 50 years ago that argued that "the law should adopt the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests". However, diddly-squat that I can see there as to which tests they think should be used to adjudicate any claims to sex category membership:
And Maya's own kick at that kitty was something of a joke -- at least the Judge wasn't terribly impressed, and with some reason:
"83) ... [Forstater's] belief is that a man is a person who, if everything is working, can produce sperm and a woman a person who, if everything is working, can produce eggs. This does not sit easily with her view that even if everything is not, in her words, “working”, and may never have done so, the person can still only be male or female."
And while this perspective is from "across the pond" -- "Gender Identity Defines Sex" (Vermont Law Review, 2015) -- and may be moot how reflective it is of UK law, it argues that "gender identity" trumps any of the reproductive abilities that were central to the two previous cases (Forstater, & Corbett versus Corbett). The whole article is a dog's breakfast of anti-scientific claptrap, incoherent dogma, and legalistic bafflegab, but a salient quote or two gives something of a synopsis of the author's, and much of the [US] legal profession's "argument":
"Segregating so-called 'real' or tangible sex characteristics using coded language, such as 'physical,' 'anatomical,' 'biological,' or 'genetic,'—from so-called 'imaginary' or intangible or psychological characteristics like 'gender identity' or 'self-identity,' reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of sex. The etiology of sex reveals that it is a multi-faceted determination. ....
Greenberg’s proposal would provide an opportunity for courts to have a deeper understanding of who transgender people are and of why gender identity is essential in legal determinations of sex."
They're clearly rather desperate to make the "imaginary or intangible" into trump. Their entire argument is profoundly antithetical to the whole project of the Enlightenment and of science itself -- on which much of our civilization precariously rests, and which depends, in turn, on scientific realism, on what is tangible and objectively quantifiable:
Why it seems that the only rational way forward -- the only way out of the morass created by gender ideology's dogmatic fixation on the entirely subjective concept of "gender identity" -- is to fall back on the standard biological definitions which are endorsed by any number of credible biological journals, as well as by Oxford Dictionaries:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
By those biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types; those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless. Big part of the whole problem is the rather desperate insistence by many, including by Forstater, that we all have to have a sex. A view that is flatly contradicted by biological science.
Seems to me that many people, on all sides of this issue, simply have to decide whether it's going to be science or feelings, the objective or the subjective, that is going to qualify as trump.
Sure. But that's probably because those WITHOUT "functioning gonads" LOOK LIKE those WITH them.
There's a fundamental difference there that a great many people are unaware of; there's a substantial difference between the criteria used to determine membership in different categories, and the traits typical of those members.
For instance, the "necessary and sufficient condition" for being a member of the category "teenager" is to be between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive. But traits typical of teenagers include emotional immaturity, bad skin, and poor driving skills. It's not necessary to have, for example, poor driving skills to qualify as a teenager; that is what is called an "accidental" property whereas "being 13 to 19 inclusive" is the "essential" property.
Decent if long-winded elaboration on the difference at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, although the first couple of paragraphs are generally sufficient to get the gist of that difference:
Similarly for the definitions for the sexes: having functional gonads of either of two types are the "essential properties" -- absent those properties, organisms, of all sexually-reproducing species, are sexless. But the "accidental properties" are different types of genitalia -- many species probably don't have anything that looks remotely like the vaginas and penises typical of humans and many other mammals. In addition to which, many species use chromosome combinations other than X & Y, yet those species still have males and females -- i.e., those who produce either of two types of gametes. See:
Sure. But that's probably because "functioning gonads" is an accidental property of membership in the category "woman". Decent idea: "deprecate or abandon the use of "sex" itself".
Some merit in that idea, though it hinges on how we define "woman". And the standard, and more useful definition is as a sex, i.e., "adult human female". In which case, "functioning ovaries" is, in fact, an essential property of that category.
Which many "women" object to -- despite barking out that definition like trained seals or parotts -- because they lose their "membership cards" at menopause.
But some merit also in at least deprecating the use of "sex", at least the biological definitions thereof -- they're simply the wrong tool for the gatekeeping jobs that society is obliging them to perform. We might be further ahead to use genitalia for access to toilets, and karyotypes for access to sports -- for women's, no XY need apply.
But y'all might have some interest in my elaborations on the theme here:
By standard definitions, many people without functioning ovaries are women - e.g. post-menopausal women - and a definition that excludes them doesn't seem more useful. But then, the standard definition of "female" is not the biological one - hence it being useful to deprecate the biological definition in non-academic institutions e.g. the law.
And where is your so-called "standard definition of 'female' ... " that excludes reproductive abilities? See, for example the Oxford definitions for the sexes:
Large part of the clusterfuck over self-identification is because the law has, once again, proven itself to be an ass -- which doesn't say much that is flattering about those who create such laws. Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is for the law to recognize those biological definitions and let the chips fall where they may.
We can't possibly portion out rights and protections on the basis of membership in particular categories if we're too gutless to say exactly what we mean by the terms in question.
I am hard at work trying to get my friends and neighbours to sign. I have hesitated so far to ask directly. I preferred to laminate and pin posters to my front door, which I know many people come to read. I ask people if I see them reading them. But this alone is not enough. I will need to e-mail directly.
In addition I am going to two local Christmas Fairs where I will wear my "Adult Human Female" T-shirt and give out my own leaflets about the Sex Matters petition. I have also ordered some button badges (66p each) like Posie's famous poster: "Woman - phonetic spelling - noun - Adult Human Female", which I hope to sell. There is novelty value in selling something new, which elicits questions. I will explain the connection between the discovery of human sex hormones in the 1950s with the rise of "gender" identity ideology and, in California, Prof Judith Butler and her utterly bizarre "queer theory" - destroying "heteronormativity" - and finally the "mind virus" in UK schools. Plus men in women's sports divisions, men in women's domestic violence refuges, sex offenders (males obvs) in women's prisons, and the "gender abattoir" of the Tavistock. That last one many people have heard about.
https://irislee.substack.com/p/from-trump-to-trans "“Every day these malignant narcissists gaslight the nation. They insist lies are truth and truth are lies. Anything critical of them becomes “fake news” [transphobia, bigotry, hatred]. No other ideology has had such a toxic effect on this country. " (from an article about Trump)
I'm concerned about part of the question that says "people with penis and testicles." I don't want anyone who has had "bottom surgery" in the locker room either. They're still male.
Also, many TRAs argue about the details in these definitions, so it should lock the definition down in order to avoid challenges about definitions.
By the standard biological definitions (below), to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither are therefore sexless. Including those "transwomen" who've had their nuts removed; they're then sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to pay to dish with the girls over the latest nail polishes, but no accounting for taste ...
But for examples, see the definitions for "male" & "female" in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
But I quite agree with you about "locking the definition down". We can't possibly have rational discussions if everyone has a different definition for the important words and categories that are being used.
If this petition was about caged chickens it would have millions of signatures. People aren’t sharing it on social media because they are scared. I don’t blame anyone for this, just pointing out the obvious.
We’ll have to reject your petition if:
It’s offensive or extreme in its views. That includes petitions that attack, criticise or negatively focus on an individual or a group of people because of characteristics such as...gender identity.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help
Reading all the disqualifiers for petitioning, it's a wonder anything at all can get through the gatekeepers. And they call it democracy.
It does not mention an individual or a group of people with any characteristics. It simply asks for clarification of the term "sex" in the E&D Act.
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic though, and therefore should not be included in any way. The fact it is raises the alarm of who exactly is gatekeeping the process.
Indeed. Though I suspect it is listed as it is not a protected charateristic so that a petiton isn't raised which seeks to specifically attack gender identity, if you see what I mean. That clause isn;lt about protecting characterists, it is about stopping the abuse of the petition system. This petition does not attack gender identity or anything else so it should be ok.
So because it's not protected, they are protecting it? But the whole point is they should not be protecting gender identity if it's not a protected characteristic. Why not state flat earthers then? I think it will be fine. But if the nonsense that is gender identity is emphasised then can the process be trusted. It's just like Ofcom. They were displaying the 'progress' pride flag colours on Twitter. Hardly unbiased.
Good! Would love to have some of that sanity rub off onto Australia. “Sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate” should be "record of one's sex as falsified by a ridiculous document governments shouldn't be issuing" since sex is not being modified. It's not the government's job to validate the colour of your imaginary aura or your number of Thetans or the fact that you believe your body is made of glass...whole thing needs to be repealed as pandering lunacy.
Bullseye! BANG--- in the middle!!!!
A very finely worded question indeed. Worded so well, to answer 'yes' would be devastating. Put their feet to the fire of the Staniland question. Make them squirm.
Politicians never answer questions in a straight and honest way.
Indeed. Expediency, getting elected, too often turns them into cowards and grifters.
Just reading "American Psychosis: How the Republican Party Went Crazy", largely as a result of pandering to various conspiracy theorists. Though the Democrats don't fare much better.
However and more particularly, Forstater isn't helping her cause all that much as her petition leaves hanging the question of exactly how we are going to define "biological sex".
See my recent comment here for some elaborations on the details -- and on the "devils" therein:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/make-parliament-answer-the-staniland/comment/10337422
Her question is so perfect in its simplicity.
Not really. As I've argued here recently, it leaves hanging the question of how to define "female", "male", and "sex" itself in the first place.
The problem is largely that the TRAs and their "useful idiots" want to redefine the sexes to be spectra -- or are "socially constructed" -- as that "justifies" their claim that people can change sex.
Most people don't realize -- or don't want to face the facts -- that there's no intrinsic meaning to the words "female" and "male". We can define them however we want. But some definitions are more useful and scientifically justified than others; deciding which ones are trump is the crux of the matter, the question of the hour.
See my recent comment for some details:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/make-parliament-answer-the-staniland/comment/10337422
See my comment above. A WM Hll debate has no legislative power so at this stage a definition of sex is not required. If the debate did lead the government to amend the 2010 Act then they would of course have to include a definition of sex in the legislation.
Signed xx
Already signed 👍
Also, Birdy Rose is under the weather. I am sure support at YT channel, thefamousartistbirdyrose would be most welcome!
I will watch this carefully from across the pond. For mind/body movement in the face of mass body dissociation, here's a link to new Ute Heggen YT channel, easy settling motions for coping with anxiety and stress, as well as for balance, aging, wellbeing. All that stuff the shrinks are being paid for. Plus, butterfly shorts from this summer's garden! Thanks for the live, GL, HS and AM~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOuW3ULLDA
I bought myself a Suffragette T shirt...it is my silent protest. I wore it into the bowels of my son's Scottish High school to no ones chargrin. So caught up in their own flags they don't see mine.
I have signed and will encourage others. NOTE such petitions only allow for a debate in Westminster Hall not the House of Commons or Lords. These debates have no formal legislative powers. Neither are MPs obliged to attend or vote, or are 'whipped ' by their political parties to do so. Their sole function is bas to highlight particular issues and bring them to the attention of MPs and Lords and the wider public. A good thing as for many of our legislators the issue is not understood. Therefore the issue about how we legally define sex does not really matter at this stage. If the publicity of this petition and hopefully a debate in WM Hall does make the government take action, than a legal definition would be included in any ammendment to the 2010 Act.
Interesting though somewhat "unfortunate" that such debates don't entail much in the way of legal obligations on the part of government. Though, as you say, at least they draw attention to the issue.
But I wonder what sort of "legal definition for the sexes" the courts are using now -- if any. As I had indicated in a previous comment, it seems there's something of a famous case -- Corbett vs Corbett -- from 1970 that had suggested that "the law should adopt the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests", though I haven't seen anything about what those tests would consist of:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/make-parliament-answer-the-staniland/comment/10337422
However, as I've indicated there, part of the problem with the ad hoc definitions apparently used now and suggested by the Corbett case is that they're based on little more than folk-biology and are rather unscientific at best. In addition to which, they conflict rather badly with the standard definitions endorsed by several reputable biological journals (Theoretical Biology, & Molecular Human Reproduction), as well as by Oxford Dictionaries, and by the Oxford Dictionary of Biology. While those latter definitions are more or less essential to the whole of biology -- not least in understanding the evolution of sexual dimorphism over several hundred million years and in millions of species -- they tend to be of limited use for any of the gatekeeping jobs that society is trying to press them into doing.
Maybe some reason to deprecate or abandon the use of "sex" itself, at least for most gatekeeping purposes. Something that the New England Journal of Medicine more or less agrees with by arguing in favour of changing birth certificates so that "sex" is in a less salient position. Even if their "reasons" for doing so -- not "offending" the intersex and transgendered -- are something of a joke:
https://nitter.it/nejm/status/1339616345353154560
Sad state of affairs when a supposedly reputable medical and scientific organization puts feelings before facts.
Given that conflict, we might be wise to recognize that, for one example, the de facto criteria for access to toilets and changes rooms isn't sex itself but genitalia, and change the laws accordingly: one set of loos for the penis-havers and one set for the vagina-havers, or reasonable facsimiles thereof in both cases. Squabbling over definitions often seems little more than a Lilliputian civil war over egg-cracking protocols which serves only to muddy the waters and preclude an honest assessment of the facts of the matter.
Well I amnot a lawyer, medic or biologists so cannot really make the definition. Of course so e men don't have penises as a result of birth deformities or illnesses and accidents causing amputation..but they are otherwise maleand shoukd be allowed to usemale facilities. So it is complicated - it may have to take onto account chromonal differences etc..
Sorry for the delay in responding; too many irons in the fire.
But I'm likewise neither a lawyer, medic nor a biologist -- just a retired electronics technologist trying to get a handle on the transgender issue, trying to use solid principles of logic and biology to separate wheat and chaff. 🙂
Tough slog, particularly since most people have prior commitments to various "articles of faith" -- particularly when it comes to sex and gender which tends to preclude much in the way of rational discussion. Relative to the latter, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright noted several years ago that there are several different definitions for "gender" in play:
"1/ Most confusion about 'gender' results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female)
2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex
3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations
4. Sex-related behavior
5. Personality traits"
https://nitter.it/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
We can't possibly have rational discussions if so many are using quite different and contradictory definitions for the same term. This is of course in the context of US-centric debates on the topic, but a clip from a Jon Stewart Apple TV segment showed that Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, was clearly quite certain that "sex" and "gender" are synonymous and that there are two and only two of them, while Stewart, more credibly, sees gender as a synonym for a broad range, a spectrum, a multitude of behavioural stereotypes:
https://nitter.it/TheProblem/status/1578777239855972354#m
Though where Stewart goes off the rails and into the weeds is apparently in arguing that sex itself is also a spectrum. Which conflicts rather badly with far more scientifically justified biological definitions as I had noted in a previous comment.
A real dog's breakfast, a case of everyone riding madly off in all directions. Bit of a sad joke in fact, a mix of the Keystone Cops, Rape of the Lock -- Part Deux, and a Lilliputian civil war over egg-cracking protocols. Largely why I'm arguing in favour of falling back on the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- those endorsed by reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- as a starting point, as a common reference point. Don't think we can have much in the way of progress on the transgender issue without that.
Really great to see some 31,400 signatures already.
However, while I wish all the luck in the world to Maya Forstater and Sex Matters on that petition, the fly in the ointment, of many, is just exactly what they think "biological sex" actually means. Expect most MPs haven't a clue themselves, or how to go about reaching a conclusion.
There was a court case in the UK some 50 years ago that argued that "the law should adopt the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests". However, diddly-squat that I can see there as to which tests they think should be used to adjudicate any claims to sex category membership:
https://swarb.co.uk/corbett-v-corbett-otherwise-ashley-fd-1-feb-1970/
And Maya's own kick at that kitty was something of a joke -- at least the Judge wasn't terribly impressed, and with some reason:
"83) ... [Forstater's] belief is that a man is a person who, if everything is working, can produce sperm and a woman a person who, if everything is working, can produce eggs. This does not sit easily with her view that even if everything is not, in her words, “working”, and may never have done so, the person can still only be male or female."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view
And while this perspective is from "across the pond" -- "Gender Identity Defines Sex" (Vermont Law Review, 2015) -- and may be moot how reflective it is of UK law, it argues that "gender identity" trumps any of the reproductive abilities that were central to the two previous cases (Forstater, & Corbett versus Corbett). The whole article is a dog's breakfast of anti-scientific claptrap, incoherent dogma, and legalistic bafflegab, but a salient quote or two gives something of a synopsis of the author's, and much of the [US] legal profession's "argument":
"Segregating so-called 'real' or tangible sex characteristics using coded language, such as 'physical,' 'anatomical,' 'biological,' or 'genetic,'—from so-called 'imaginary' or intangible or psychological characteristics like 'gender identity' or 'self-identity,' reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of sex. The etiology of sex reveals that it is a multi-faceted determination. ....
Greenberg’s proposal would provide an opportunity for courts to have a deeper understanding of who transgender people are and of why gender identity is essential in legal determinations of sex."
https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/39-4-06_Levasseur.pdf
They're clearly rather desperate to make the "imaginary or intangible" into trump. Their entire argument is profoundly antithetical to the whole project of the Enlightenment and of science itself -- on which much of our civilization precariously rests, and which depends, in turn, on scientific realism, on what is tangible and objectively quantifiable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
Why it seems that the only rational way forward -- the only way out of the morass created by gender ideology's dogmatic fixation on the entirely subjective concept of "gender identity" -- is to fall back on the standard biological definitions which are endorsed by any number of credible biological journals, as well as by Oxford Dictionaries:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
By those biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types; those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless. Big part of the whole problem is the rather desperate insistence by many, including by Forstater, that we all have to have a sex. A view that is flatly contradicted by biological science.
Seems to me that many people, on all sides of this issue, simply have to decide whether it's going to be science or feelings, the objective or the subjective, that is going to qualify as trump.
Seem to me that a woman with functioning gonads is no more or less likely to suffer misogyny than one without.
Sure. But that's probably because those WITHOUT "functioning gonads" LOOK LIKE those WITH them.
There's a fundamental difference there that a great many people are unaware of; there's a substantial difference between the criteria used to determine membership in different categories, and the traits typical of those members.
For instance, the "necessary and sufficient condition" for being a member of the category "teenager" is to be between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive. But traits typical of teenagers include emotional immaturity, bad skin, and poor driving skills. It's not necessary to have, for example, poor driving skills to qualify as a teenager; that is what is called an "accidental" property whereas "being 13 to 19 inclusive" is the "essential" property.
Decent if long-winded elaboration on the difference at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, although the first couple of paragraphs are generally sufficient to get the gist of that difference:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Similarly for the definitions for the sexes: having functional gonads of either of two types are the "essential properties" -- absent those properties, organisms, of all sexually-reproducing species, are sexless. But the "accidental properties" are different types of genitalia -- many species probably don't have anything that looks remotely like the vaginas and penises typical of humans and many other mammals. In addition to which, many species use chromosome combinations other than X & Y, yet those species still have males and females -- i.e., those who produce either of two types of gametes. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy
Sure. But that's probably because "functioning gonads" is an accidental property of membership in the category "woman". Decent idea: "deprecate or abandon the use of "sex" itself".
Some merit in that idea, though it hinges on how we define "woman". And the standard, and more useful definition is as a sex, i.e., "adult human female". In which case, "functioning ovaries" is, in fact, an essential property of that category.
Which many "women" object to -- despite barking out that definition like trained seals or parotts -- because they lose their "membership cards" at menopause.
But some merit also in at least deprecating the use of "sex", at least the biological definitions thereof -- they're simply the wrong tool for the gatekeeping jobs that society is obliging them to perform. We might be further ahead to use genitalia for access to toilets, and karyotypes for access to sports -- for women's, no XY need apply.
But y'all might have some interest in my elaborations on the theme here:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
By standard definitions, many people without functioning ovaries are women - e.g. post-menopausal women - and a definition that excludes them doesn't seem more useful. But then, the standard definition of "female" is not the biological one - hence it being useful to deprecate the biological definition in non-academic institutions e.g. the law.
And which definition is that? Which dictionaries and encyclopedias explicitly exclude "female" in the definition?
A Google search of " ... 'woman' 'definition' ..." yields 165 million results, the top ones of which explicitly say "adult human female":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman
And where is your so-called "standard definition of 'female' ... " that excludes reproductive abilities? See, for example the Oxford definitions for the sexes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Large part of the clusterfuck over self-identification is because the law has, once again, proven itself to be an ass -- which doesn't say much that is flattering about those who create such laws. Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is for the law to recognize those biological definitions and let the chips fall where they may.
We can't possibly portion out rights and protections on the basis of membership in particular categories if we're too gutless to say exactly what we mean by the terms in question.
I am hard at work trying to get my friends and neighbours to sign. I have hesitated so far to ask directly. I preferred to laminate and pin posters to my front door, which I know many people come to read. I ask people if I see them reading them. But this alone is not enough. I will need to e-mail directly.
In addition I am going to two local Christmas Fairs where I will wear my "Adult Human Female" T-shirt and give out my own leaflets about the Sex Matters petition. I have also ordered some button badges (66p each) like Posie's famous poster: "Woman - phonetic spelling - noun - Adult Human Female", which I hope to sell. There is novelty value in selling something new, which elicits questions. I will explain the connection between the discovery of human sex hormones in the 1950s with the rise of "gender" identity ideology and, in California, Prof Judith Butler and her utterly bizarre "queer theory" - destroying "heteronormativity" - and finally the "mind virus" in UK schools. Plus men in women's sports divisions, men in women's domestic violence refuges, sex offenders (males obvs) in women's prisons, and the "gender abattoir" of the Tavistock. That last one many people have heard about.
Happy Christmas!
Does this sound familiar?
https://irislee.substack.com/p/from-trump-to-trans "“Every day these malignant narcissists gaslight the nation. They insist lies are truth and truth are lies. Anything critical of them becomes “fake news” [transphobia, bigotry, hatred]. No other ideology has had such a toxic effect on this country. " (from an article about Trump)
I'm concerned about part of the question that says "people with penis and testicles." I don't want anyone who has had "bottom surgery" in the locker room either. They're still male.
Also, many TRAs argue about the details in these definitions, so it should lock the definition down in order to avoid challenges about definitions.
Not really "still male".
By the standard biological definitions (below), to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither are therefore sexless. Including those "transwomen" who've had their nuts removed; they're then sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to pay to dish with the girls over the latest nail polishes, but no accounting for taste ...
But for examples, see the definitions for "male" & "female" in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
And Oxford Dictionaries say pretty much the same thing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
But I quite agree with you about "locking the definition down". We can't possibly have rational discussions if everyone has a different definition for the important words and categories that are being used.
If this petition was about caged chickens it would have millions of signatures. People aren’t sharing it on social media because they are scared. I don’t blame anyone for this, just pointing out the obvious.
Looks like you could be getting your Twitter back! 🎉🎉
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595869526469533701?cxt=HHwWioCzkaG41aUsAAAA