Biological sex is apparently - ambiguous.

[andyoldlabour]

Yes, you read that correctly. How anyone can make a statement like that is beyond me. But the person in the following video states it quite confidently.
Words fail me.

This person's voice indicates quite clearly what sex they were observed at birth.

That is clearly a biological voice.

And yet the sex of that person is easy to tell 🤔🤔

Having a deep voice indicates that this person transitioned in adulthood, after puberty, which I thought this board was passionately in favour of. snide comments about how well she does or does not pass is unlikely to encourage other trans youth to wait until adulthood before starting to transition. if your obsession with trans people really was borne out of concern for the children, you would not tolerate remarks like this in your community. you always manage to tell on yourselves don't you?

Having a deep voice indicates that this person transitioned in adulthood, after puberty, which I thought this board was passionately in favour of
Define transition

I have a real life friend who had full surgery before they were 20
they do NOT sound like that speaker.

People who have had surgery and the chemicals do not sound like that

(a good case study is Lynette Nusbacher who appeared on episodes of Abandoned Engineering right the way through their transition - you can see and hear Aryeh turn into Lynette over the series)

I’m not in favour of anyone feeling they have to ‘transition’ to feel accepted. I’d much rather we got rid of ridículos gender stereotypes so that people born male could wear dresses and have long hair and still be proudly male rather than feeling they must somehow be a woman

Sex is not ambiguous - There are only 2 sexes, everyone is one or the other. people with DSD are not a mysterious third sex

@outed "if your ["]obsession["] with trans people really was [born] out of concern for the children"

If transwomen's (you don't hear from transmen much at all) obsession with validation was really born out of a concern for the recognition of their human and civil rights, they would recognize that women have those rights too.

Having a deep voice indicates that this person transitioned in adulthood, after puberty, which I thought this board was passionately in favour of.

My comment wasn't aimed at the speaker. I don't care how well an individual person passes. My point was that if biological sex doesn't exist, then how can I can hear a voice and read it immediately as male or female within seconds? That would be impossible if biological sex was really 'ambiguous' as the speaker claims.

@outedbyfaircop

This person's voice indicates quite clearly what sex they were observed at birth.

That is clearly a biological voice.

And yet the sex of that person is easy to tell 🤔🤔

Having a deep voice indicates that this person transitioned in adulthood, after puberty, which I thought this board was passionately in favour of. snide comments about how well she does or does not pass is unlikely to encourage other trans youth to wait until adulthood before starting to transition. if your obsession with trans people really was borne out of concern for the children, you would not tolerate remarks like this in your community. you always manage to tell on yourselves don't you?

I think you missed the point. The speaker was explaining "biology" as some indeterminate thing, and yet the different speaking voices of males and female is entirely a function of "biology".

If "biology" is to be framed as "ambiguous" with absolute certainty then surely stating the biological obvious is neither here nor there, and why would you be so upset by it? Shouldn't you be telling us that voices are on a spectrum and no one knows? These are your rules, I think you must play by them.

"Biological sex is an ambiguous word...."

That's two words, love.

I can't take you seriously if you can't count to two.

Which is the number of actual sexes there are. The irony.

if your obsession with trans people really was borne out of concern for the children, you would not tolerate remarks like this in your community. you always manage to tell on yourselves don't you

The 'obsession" you talk of is actually about two things, primarily:

1. Protecting and defending women's right to the dignity and privacy of their sex - as an integral reality

2. To protecting young non conforming or vulnerable children and adults from gender ideology

We'll that was the mistake they made in Jurassic Park, 'cause, you know, frogs.
Incidentally if all the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are female it passes the Bechdel test.

^But again, how do you know they're all female? Does somebody go out into the park and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts^

The 'obsession' is with protecting women's rights and children's safeguarding from obfustication like this intended to remove necessary sex based definitions.

If there was mutual respect and acceptance that these things cannot be dismantled for those who would prefer not to be constrained by the idea of sex without forcibly dismantling rights, protections and the meeting of needs for others - and largely others with much less political clout and voices and protections in law -

this board could go back to sleep, there'd be no problem, and we'd all be a lot happier. Live and let live has to happen on both sides.

Incidentally if all the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are female it passes the Bechdel test.

I don't think the dinosaurs talked to each other.

No! The rapters defo had a plan.

It's ok, I speak raptor.
Roar, roar, bark, shriek.
'That Ellie is pretty cool, let's not eat her face.'
'I concur, dinosaurs eat man, women inherits the earth'.

Biological sex is an ambiguous word that ... says nothing about our sense of self nor our holistic physical characteristics throughout the course of our lifetimes. I rather think that women's distincitive sex says quite a lot about our sense of self in that how we are treated is determined by our sexed bodies and our physical characteristics. But then the person who said that cannot know such things because of, you know, biological sex.

Trying to discuss reality with the person making the video brings to mind Jurassic Park III "oooh, aaah, that's how it always starts. Then later there's the running and the screaming"

That video made something click for me on the
Trans Women are Women
argument
and passing as another identity

Use a sound recording
remove all visual cues

I suspect that almost all women and most men will be able to work it out in seconds

Sometimes I think that THEY think, if they say the same thing over and over again ad nauseum, it somehow makes it true. Almost as if they need to jeep repeating it to themselves to give it validation.
However, it will never be true, and really, even they know it.
There is NO ambiguity about biological sex. large gametes or small gametes. There has never been, and will never be, another kind. No-one has ever produced both.
Saying words doesn't make it true. And that's all there is to it really. In 100'000 years time, there will still be males and females. Reproducing to produce other males and females. There is no ambiguity, sorry.

@Justhadathought

Its a good exemplar of coercive-control pattern behaviour

Holding everyone hostage for the purposes of validating identity.

How precarious!

If the term "biological sex" is now hate speech, then how can you have any meaningful discussions about fairness in sports.... Oh wait... You now can't... Maybe that's the plan..

www.collectivelyfree.org/the-womyns-club-and-transphobia/

Saw this a while ago... And now that the term "biological sex" is problematic it does remind of the vegan feminists..

Anyone care to analyse who so many women and girls are into this stuff? The Crucible keeps popping into my head

Anyone care to analyse who so many women and girls are into this stuff? The Crucible keeps popping into my head

A combination of:

1. Not having yet been exposed to the realities of life as a woman in a female body ( pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood, inequities at work and so on). Although a few seem to have been waking up to the vulnerabilities of women, recently, in response to the Sarah Everard murder

2. Living in ivory towers of academia - relatively shielded, and invested in ideological discourse

3. Being more than keen to be on the 'right side' and be ideologically pure and consistent son as to fit in with the crowd ( this is a very big driver for many). But one day most will wake up ( point1) - and re-evaluate in the light of experience.

so as to fit in with the crowd

Oh dear, the usual nonsense.

Heather Heying laying down some reality:

HH: Newsflash: it is precisely your biology—at least 500 million uninterrupted years of it—that makes a man a man or a woman a woman.

HH: If you think it’s clothes or beliefs or affectations that make you a man or a woman, you are a sexist, and seriously out of touch with reality.

Respondant: Are you sure about the "500 million uninterrupted years"?

Respondant: That takes us back to the Silurian, when we were primative fish.

Heather spells out exactly how sure she is:

twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1377805849888923650
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1377805849888923650.html

Thanks NS1 - a very nice remedial evolution lesson for the ignorant or confused.

Wow that vegan feminists thing is interesting. It seems to start with a coherent if slightly mad argument that feminism should reject all the concepts of feminine and masculine and of men and women - so noone is a woman, they might be a person with a uterus but they're all persons.

(That would seem to make it impossible to transition. )

Then I think it jumps straight to TWAW and the central importance of affirming this . So, for ideological reasons, women are not women, but persons, but transwomen are women. People with uteruses should reject the woman label but people with penises should claim it. This step does seem mad to me - please debate this if it makes sense to you.