New Zealand: Bill on transgender birth certificates creates big issues

By the definitions I've seen in this forum, an AIS woman isn't a woman, because she has a Y chromosome. Yet she would have been socialised as a girl and, short of an invasive medical examination, would be physically indistinguishable from her female peers. What box does she belong in?
Are you saying that a transgender biological male is the equivalent of someone with CAIS? By virtue of being intersex, intersex people are not necessarily classified by karyotype, no. Rather they are categorised by the sex they are assigned to at birth, which is a decision made based on their phenotype.
But...transgender people are not intersex.

Well at least New Zealand have decided erasing women just isn't enough, they want to erase intersex people too. Now you can play dress up as either.

And yes, intersex people have repeatedly requested they not be used to justify (not the right word but it's late) transgenderism. So let's not eh?

Highginx - I don't see intersex people as a caveat to the discussion at all. I have a couple of intersex people in my life, and I actually think that a purely biological definition of woman/man threatens them with erasure.

Scrumplestiltskin - My understanding is that it isn't always so clear cut, and in any case chromosome analysis isn't ordinarily a test performed on infants, but rather often only much later when abnormalities become apparent.

By the definitions I've seen in this forum, an AIS woman isn't a woman, because she has a Y chromosome. Yet she would have been socialised as a girl and, short of an invasive medical examination, would be physically indistinguishable from her female peers. What box does she belong in?

Yeah I guess people can't win... on the one hand we get dismissed entirely as not being able to speak rationally as women

On the other hand people don't want to not make sure we know they recognise it's difficult for us

Some days I just want the be a woman... which I am 😁 but a woman who is equal... no special treatment or dismissal either way

I get that nobody ever knows what to do though and can't really win. Its just annoying (for everyone - me or them)

So sorry what was your definition of a woman jul?

How comfortable are you with sharing an open plan changing room with a born male identifying as a woman who hasn't had bottom surgery? If you're comfortable what about your mum/sister/daughter/nan/friend who has been sexually assaulted in the past. If they're not comfortable should they just 'getoverit'?

But if you say that only dogs bark, only cats meow and that things that bark or meow must automatically be part of one of those sets, then yes your logic is reductive. And that feels an awful lot like your definition of woman.

Such nonsense. It's you who is doing those mental gymnastics. TWAW:

Cat:

1. Felis Catus

1. Dogs (what's that? A similarly inane definition) which use a flap in the door

1. Rabbits (what's that? A similarly inane definition) which use a litter tray

Honestly julj, speaking for myself while I appreciate the gesture, I'd rather you addressed the points I and others have made here, than offered sympathy.

Sorry if that comes across as a weak answer.

It really does.

Heartbrokenandtired & Scrumplestiltskin - I feel great sympathy for both of you.

It's definitely not okay to tell anyone how they should feel about their life experiences, or anything really. Dismissing someone on that basis is awful, and I'm sorry you've experienced that.

I'm genuinely sorry if I've rekindled negative feelings for either of you.

Being born with female genitalia and chromosomes don't make you any less or any more a woman than another who also has been born with female genitalia and chromosomes

It's what equaliises us as adult human females. It's the only common denominator that makes a woman, a woman??

When you categorise by genitalia, do you mean internal or external? What about people with AIS/PAIS?
When you categorise by karyotype, do you just include the standard ones, or also abnormalities?
As far as I'm aware, intersex people can always be fairly easily classified as male intersex or female intersex (based on the presence of an active SRY gene or lack thereof,) unless they have mosiacism, chimerism, or ovotesticular disorder of sex development.

Just popping my head around the door to remind you that intersex people aren’t massively into being co-opted as caveats for transgender individuals. All best.

Truthfully VovoBickie, I'm not sure I could articulate that in a few neat sentences.

What I am sure of is that it's not quite as black and white as most posters on this forum seem to be asserting.

Sorry if that comes across as a weak answer.

Thank you, heartbrokenandtired - you have my empathy
Too many women have the male violence perpetrated against us later used by other males to label us paranoid, or irrational, and dismiss our perspective and stance. In a way, its a revictimisation that reoccurs continuously throughout life.

Failingatlife - With every absolutely every woman?

Nothing (other than species), which is exactly the same number of commonalities as you.

When you categorise by genitalia, do you mean internal or external? What about people with AIS/PAIS?

When you categorise by karyotype, do you just include the standard ones, or also abnormalities?

If you choose the former option for either question, then you effectively exclude intersex people from either biological sex don't you? They are more numerous than you may realise. Where do they fit into your neat little categorisation?

Whatever definition you plump for, can you agree that there are grey areas?

That rang a bell Scrumplestiltskin 💐

I get told a lot by men that I just feel this or that because I'm a survivor of abuse and I wouldn't if I wasn't because other women don't

But they do... other women do... I don't have to have not experienced x, y or z for it to be valid when I say "as a woman I feel..."

Sorry for derailing but I'm so often dismissed as being able to say how women feel because of my experiences and that chimed about having it used against you

@julj70 what is negative about defining a category by its fundamental and unique characteristics? How is requiring one to be of the female sex to be classed as a woman any more negative or reductive than requiring them to feel a special "woman-feeling" identity unrelated to biology? I'd argue that requiring a special woman-feeling identity unrelated to biology would be more negative.

Thank you, julj. Interestingly, no female person has ever used my past experiences against me. Transwomen however, and other males, have.
I don't think that human rights are a zero-sum game though - the addition of rights to some humans needn't be to the detriment of others.
I don't see what rights trans people are lacking that everyone else has, however. Why should being treated and legally recognised as the opposite sex to what you are, be a human right?

So what's your definition of women then - if not adult human female? Please enlighten us.

Materialist - indeed, any animal is obviously more than the sounds it makes.

But if you say that only dogs bark, only cats meow and that things that bark or meow must automatically be part of one of those sets, then yes your logic is reductive. And that feels an awful lot like your definition of woman.

There are lots of things that make me, me...

But the only things I can think of that make me an adult human female are probably my genitalia and chromosomes?

I'm no less female than a woman who perhaps dresses more feminine than myself

No less female than a woman who perhaps has more children than me

No less female than perhaps a woman who (insert things that women stereotypically do)

That's quite a reductive definition isn't it?

All definitions are reductive, you nelly. How can you have a definition if you do not reduce it down to it's essential characteristics?

Define
Verb
To explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of.

The word Female specifically refers to reproductive capacity. A definition of the word female that no longer references reproductive capacity is an erasure of the word itself.

juls70

Ask yourself this : what do you have in common with every other woman /girl (birth sex) on the planet?

I'll claim a lack of caffeine (and 50 open browser tabs) for the mis-post. :)

I really feel from you Scrumplestiltskin, and wouldn't wish your experience on anyone. I find it horrifying that any human being, trans or otherwise, would attack you with that. It shows a real lack of empathy, basic humanity even, on the part of those people.

I don't think that human rights are a zero-sum game though - the addition of rights to some humans needn't be to the detriment of others.