New Zealand: Bill on transgender birth certificates creates big issues

[TimeLady]

Sounds familiar....

www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/108740984/Bill-on-transgender-birth-certificates-creates-big-issues

Scrumplestiltskin - that was actually the first time you'd pulled all of that together. So female means 46 XX karyotype and nothing else then? Which has to mean that a woman with CAIS isn't, in your view, a woman and should use male toilets, changing rooms etc.? But, as the prevalence is low they don't really matter anyway, do they?

DisrespectfulAdultFemale - Nice ad hom! Not so much hard of thinking, just not in agreement with you. And not someone who needs to feed my confirmation bias by only interacting with people who agree with me.

PainInTheEar - You're making a false equivalence between gender dysphoria and psychosis, but I'm pretty sure you knew that already. If you really do feel that way I suggest that you consult a medical professional.

Materialist - I get it now. Biological sex is binary, except in cases where it isn't. Far from everyone discovers their baby's sex during pre-natal scans, or has an amniocentesis, and APGAR scoring has nothing to do with assignment of biological sex. Except where there is obvious reason to suspect an abnormality there is no detailed examination of a baby's genitalia. I actually think that's a good thing, but it does mean that some newborns in the grey area are not picked up until much later. No disrespect meant to midwives btw. My choice of the phrase "cursory glance" wasn't ideal and in retrospect I can see that it could appear to be pejorative. Perhaps non-detailed examination would have been a better way of putting it.

A few questions for you, then.

What percentage of people do you think are intersex, and what conditions are you including under that term?

Do you think intersex conditions constitute some sort of "in between state" (the "sex is a spectrum" claim), or do you think they arise when something goes wrong (in biological terms, not in morally normative terms) with normal sexual development?

Can you explain what this has to do with being trans, given that most trans people start out as totally biologically typical members of their birth sex (and indeed are capable of carrying/fathering children according to which sex they are)?

And finally, if "being a woman" is to do with "feeling womanly", can you tell me what feelings I am supposed to have in common with the other 3.5 billion women on the planet and Pippa Bunce, Jane Fae, Riley Dennis, Caitlin Jenner, etc. etc., which I don't have in common with at least some of the 3.5 billion men on the planet? How is this "distinguishing people according to how they feel on the inside" thing supposed to work? And how can it help me tell the difference between someone who genuinely has the feelings they claim they have and someone who is faking for nefarious purposes (the Karen Whites, Davina Ayrtons, NUS student reps with a fondness for flashing their penis in public places type of people)?

The commonly quoted figure is 1.6%, and I've heard in the past that it includes roughly 20-30 distinct conditions. These range from some relatively minor conditions like hypospadias, through to more serious conditions like PAIS/CAIS and chromosomal mosaicism. Would you disagree with any of that?

The only relevance it has is to the assertion that all humans have a neat biological sex, assignable at birth and immutable through their life. That is clearly untrue.

Given that a significant proportion of humans are infertile, regardless of whether they are unambiguously one sex or another I can't see the relevance of being able to carry/father a child. I don't think that a reasonable person would claim that someone is less female or male on the basis of fertility would they? And after all, most biological women spend the majority of their lifespan unable to carry children. Are they less female before and after that period of their lives?

I really can't speak for your feelings or what they have in common with anyone else on this planet. Nor can I. That said, I'd hope that I have little in common with Caitlyn Jenner; not because she's trans, but because I think she's an odious self-serving individual.

As for how it's going to work - I don't know. But I don't think throwing legitimate transwomen under the bus because of what a tiny minority of (using your words) nefarious fakers might do is the answer. In my opinion, it goes completely against natural justice. We don't convict whole groups based upon what individuals within that group might do. As I said earlier, I'm personally not 100% comfortable with unfettered self id either. But presuming guilt rather than innocence isn't fair, it isn't 'Kiwi', and that's (just) one of the reasons I'm proud of my country.

APGAR scoring has nothing to do with assignment of biological sex

You don't assign biological sex. It's determined by biology. At conception. You can't just decide it's going to be something different.

I'll tell you what, Julj, rather than coming on here and telling us how we're all wrong for not wanting males in our female spaces for all sorts of reasons, why not go and speak to males and instruct them to stop commiting acts of male violence.

At least then we women can remove that concern from our lives.

Maybe if we don't feel so vulnerable around males, then we won't be quite so concerned about them being in our spaces...

Why are transwomen not angry with their fellow male bodied people for behaving so appallingly towards women that women don't want any of them in our safe spaces regardless of how they identify?

Trans women feel intimated by men.
They know that male violence is a very real threat - one reason why they wish to use female toilets.
And yet, for us to be afraid of the same threat? No. Not important.
Trans women continue to centre their own needs ahead of what women need to feel safe. And that alone is such a typically male-trait that I remain unconvinced of their immunity to male socialisation.

Julj seriously mate it's not that hard. It really and truly is just about which gamete an organism produces.
The rest is just layers of bullshit.
A person can live as gendered a life as they wish without pretending gender is a natural consequence of biology. H

Biological sex is binary, except in cases where it isn't.

It's my understanding that sex is binary, because the word binary refers to how many of each sex is required to reproduce. And that it must be one from each category. Otherwise, you know, it doesn't work.

I don't think throwing legitimate transwomen under the bus because of what a tiny minority of (using your words) nefarious fakers might do is the answer.

How can you expect people to consider you credible, when you spend all your posts claiming there is no such thing as a sex category that can be reliably defined, and in the next breath claim that you can define transwomen!!

On what possible basis??

We don't convict whole groups based upon what individuals within that group might do

Again, your slip is showing. Expecting men to use the facilities of their sex, isn't convicting them of anything.

And, of course we assess risk based on a class analysis. When I'm DBS checked, I don't go off alarming because I'm not a paedophile.

98% of all sexually violent crime is committed by men. The common denominator is that they are male. Not how they identify.

There are plenty of women who would be willing to segregate along the lines of men with gender dysphoria, versus fetishistic cross dressers/autogynephiles.

But as it's impossible for anyone to make a distinction, that can never happen. You can blame transactivists for this, not the women pointing it out.

julj Do you understand how sexual reproduction works in humans? If not, I suggest you consult a basic biology textbook or look it up on the internet.

Fully formed adult men, who have fathered children, are claiming to be women on the basis of some sort of feminine essence inside them. Do you understand why we might be a little dubious about such claims?

And after all, most biological women spend the majority of their lifespan unable to carry children. Are they less female before and after that period of their lives?

BINGO!

How does the existence of intersex humans say anything about the immutability of sex? Is there a whole bunch of intersex people identifying as non-intersex as adults, and what would that mean?

Sex is defined at conception and does not change, whether typical or disordered. The process of giving birth, which only occurs in post-pubescent members of the female sex class but not in all of them (and whether that process ever occurs does not affect membership of that class), does not affect the sex of the baby. Nobody assigns sex to anybody. These are facts. Chrissakes, what kind of world are we suddenly living in when these extremely basic facts are suddenly in dispute?

StarsAndMoonlight - We absolutely do assign sex at birth. You know that moment when a medical professional looks between the infant's legs and says. "It's a..."? Obviously assignment by a human doesn't change biology, but it can change the course of that child's life in the odd case where they get it wrong.

Did I say that I don't condemn male violence against women, and don't speak out against it?

Highgnx - To turn your argument around:

Women are at risk of violence from men, transwomen are at risk of violence from men too, and yet you would put transwomen in the dangerous position of using male facilities. I think it may be you who has empathy issues.

7Days - What about, for instance, CAIS women? What gametes do they produce? What about humans who through a DSD don't produce gametes at all? What sex are they? I'm sure it won't be hard to answer mate.

Datun - I don't think binary means what you think it does.

I used the word convicted (and likewise guilt and innocence) not literally but to illustrate the concept of natural justice. We don't (well, we shoudn't) make sweeping assumptions about the likely behaviour of a group based upon the behaviour of individuals within it. Any other conclusion takes you into some rather dangerous territory.

OldCrone - Thanks for asking, I do have a reasonable knowledge of human reproduction. Professionally I'm a scientist, and though not a biologist I can understand scientific concepts across most fields. I do understand that you would be dubious of such claims. What I don't understand is the seeming inability of most here to budge their position even slightly. Everything is black or white, even when it's grey appears to be the dogma.

Binglebong - I think I can see what you're trying to do there. I'll clarify what I was saying by adding that it's also a fact that some biological women are never able to carry a child. On that basis can we agree that the inability to carry a child doesn't automatically disqualify someone from the woman category.

Women are at risk of violence from men, transwomen are at risk of violence from men too

Do you know who is at the biggest risk of violence from men? It's actually men. We have separation according to sex rather than individual propensity for violence because (unless you're Layla Moran, MP) you can't see into people's souls and tell whether a man is the good kind of man or the rapey violent kind.

It hasn't been proven that transwomens' rate of offending differs to natal males (in fact the data seems to show that offending patterns are the same, though data is definitely lacking in this area). Of course not all transwomen are violent sex pests, but neither are all men. Doesn't mean we allow men in women's prisons, changing rooms etc.

Obviously assignment by a human doesn't change biology, but it can change the course of that child's life in the odd case where they get it wrong.

Why? According to you there's no such thing as sex, so they can just express whatever gender they feel like.

What I don't understand is the seeming inability of most here to budge their position even slightly. Everything is black or white, even when it's grey appears to be the dogma.

Well, if a man has fathered children, he is clearly male, since even if he has a DSD he has been able to produce viable sperm. I'm struggling to see what is 'grey' here. How much should anyone 'budge their position' for such a man?

Why do you think we should 'budge our position' anyway? Why shouldn't it be you who does that? Because you appear to be refusing to move on this as well.

Women are at risk of violence from men, transwomen are at risk of violence from men too, and yet you would put transwomen in the dangerous position of using male facilities.

Gay men are at risk of violence from other men as well. For much the same reasons as transwomen. Gay men have never demanded to be able to use women's facilities. Why should transwomen (most of whom have a penis) be treated differently from gay men?

The answer is to stop men from being so violent.

Good point about gay men OldCrone

OldCrone - I didn't say that there is no such thing as sex, but rather that sex isn't binary.

I agree that I haven't moved either, but I'm not intransigent. I can, and regularly do, change my position on things when faced with new evidence. What I won't do is change my position on the basis of rhetoric. I haven't seen much compelling evidence. I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind here, just provide some balance.

Love the fox picture btw, but I got that you think transwomen are men without the need for visual aids.

Gay men use male facilities because they are men.

KinCat - Nor can I look into your soul and tell whether you're a good person or not. I definitely can't tell that you're a good person just because you're a woman (I'm assuming you are a woman). But what I will do, as a fellow human being, is give you the benefit of the doubt (within reason) until you display behaviours that convince me otherwise.

For transwomen to be allowed into women's spaces they would have to be able to 'prove' that their group's offending rate is different to that of natal men? You could never prove that - there's only proof in maths and alcohol. You could gather data and eventually draw a conclusion, but like you said there isn't yet strong data. In the meantime. do we put all transwomen into danger? If the data eventually produces the conclusion that transwomen aren't more dangerous to biological women than any other woman, then would transwomen harmed/killed in the interim just be collateral damage? I can see the opposite side of that argument too, but as I said earlier, I would prefer to start from the position of assuming good of people than assuming bad of them.

“Obviously assignment by a human doesn't change biology, but it can change the course of that child's life in the odd case where they get it wrong.”

If you’re talking about intersex conditions, nearly all of these are diagnosed close to birth because something is typically noticeably wrong. Those rare ones that aren’t (like cais) are typically discovered when something goes wrong during puberty. The point is these are mostly well characterized disorders with known symptoms/syndromes. In general docs are no longer coercively altering babies genitals they genitals look “weird” a used to be done. And this has nothing to do with the debate at hand which you actually did admit somewhere (yet you keep bringing it up over and over anyway).

Unless by “got it wrong” you mean assigned the wrong “gender”. But of course, docs / midwives / ultrasounds don’t assign gender. They assign sex which as you admit just now doesn’t change. And anyway people can be whatever gender they want later on (by the definition of gender that TRAs use)

So what are you saying is assigned?

julj70 of course you can't tell if I'm a good person.

The point is that as a society we have a convention that males and females are separated in certain instances. This is at least partly to do with the threat that men present to women e.g. sexual assault.

I think it's wrong to change this convention without proper debate and research.

What about the women who are put in danger while transwomen are let into women's spaces without proper debate or consideration? Off the top of my head I'm thinking of the female prisoners Karen White sexually assaulted while on remand in a female prison.

I've been assaulted too many times to assume the good intention of any man, sorry.

julj70 actually my intention was to show that development disorders existing doesn’t make usual characteristics of humans a spectrum, be it sex or number of legs, as you had stated ”the existence of one [grey area] undermines the concept of neat binary boxes for biological sex”

The rest was partially to illustrate that I think being transgender is dependent on having dysphoria, and it seems as though we may have found common ground on this. Do you think all instances of transgender people arise from dysphoria?

We absolutely do assign sex at birth. You know that moment when a medical professional looks between the infant's legs and says. "It's a..."?

Assign = allocate

Allocate - distribute (resources or duties) for a particular purpose

Biological sex is actually recognised or identified at birth based on present genitalia.

Recognise = identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again

A real life situation;

As you are aware, China had a single child policy for many years. Males were the preferred sex child and females were often abandoned. Chinese parents had no difficulty identifying which sex their children were. They didn't randomly assign a sex to their children, they recognised them as male or female at birth and responded accordingly.

The result of that is that, in 2016, there were over 33 million more men than women in China society.

The impact of that has been that fertility and birth rates in China have remained low resulting in an ageing population and shrinking work force due to there not being enough women to produce babies.

This situation cannot be rectified by determining a required quotia of females and assigning the allotted number of babies 'female'.

Ergo, sex is not assigned.

I've been assaulted too many times to assume the good intention of any man, sorry

Same here.

I knew Jul would bring up hypospadias. These people always do. It's the only way they can get the percentages as high as they quote.

Most medics don't classify it as intersex - boys born with it have normal fertility, normal tested, normal male phenotype, just a minor cosmetic difference in their penis.

It would be like me saying that because I have a tongue tie which mildly affects my ability to roll my "r"s I should be placed in the same category as a friend's child with a chromosomal trisomy which has led them to have severe language delay.

I suppose I should just be thankful Jul stopped short of that other piece of medical nonsense, which is including women with PCOS (yes, I've seen some of the more fringe TRAs do that).

Genuine intersex conditions are a lot rarer.

And in any case, being intersex has nothing to do with being trans, and intersex people have repeatedly asked that their medical history not be appropriated and weaponised in someone else's political battle.

Yes I find the hypospadias thing very offensive too.

I get it now. Biological sex is binary, except in cases where it isn't.

Julj can I just confirm that you're a scientist? That you make a living from science and yet you believe that in categorising something, you should be able to account for every abnormality that occurs, otherwise the definitions of the category aren't valid? That medical conditions which affect a tiny proportion of people and are just a sign of biology (and all life on earth) being messy all need to be included and accounted for before categorisations are valid?

I don't mean to be personal but do your employers know this?!

People forget what medical science has achieved. Go to any country where many people can't afford healthcare and you will see an extremely wide variety of humans. Children with grossly swollen heads, conjoined limbs, extra limbs, extreme deformities....... Biology is not neat. If the science worked the way julj thinks it does, we would be unravelling such a huge mess we'd have achieved pretty much zilch.