What is the biological definition of a woman (and man)?

[Wombat2WombatCombat]

I understand the argument for single sex spaces, but just for the avoidance of any doubt, does anyone have an exact, biological definition of a woman (or man) that we can hold people to? If we want to enforce the idea of single-sex spaces, we will need an exact criteria to determine who is or isn’t a ‘real’ woman, so I was wondering if anyone could tell me exactly what that is?

So

The biological definition is known

The exact nature of problems that lead to a potential mismatch between the definition and sex identification through cursory glance are known

So???

@bishophaha

Look up what transition means. It means changing from one state to another

Unambiguously define what those two states are.

I cannot speak for the biological aspects (that’s why I made the thread in the first place), but while I can’t speak for Rainbow, I would assume in the context of gender it is transitioning from identifying as one gender to identifying as another, something that would be extremely easy to determine as by nature it simply requires observing how the individual refers to themselves

@anothersmahedmug

"Let's ignore the fact that not all transwomen are good people"

Yes, let's. Because like I said already, actions of individuals are not grounds for discrimination. Neither is "but what about crime statistics!"

"Harm occurs through msntal harm caused by previous trauma triggered by the male body"

Again, someone can similarly be traumatized against other racial groups. It's not grounds for exclusion and discrimination.

I have struggled to find much in depth information on how birth certificate sex is determined, but what I have found indicates that it is based on external genitalia appearance, which in some cases can be ambiguous, and which also conflicts with the previously stated definitions around gamete production. In countries like Germany, this is dealt with by also allowing the term ‘indeterminate’, which identifies a potential lack of a distinct binary

You are being really offensive. Some females are terminated in utero, or murdered at birth, for no other reason than that they have been correctly sexed as female. Other girls are oppressed from the minute they are born, for no other reason than that they are female. And as those females grow up, every piece of shit who continues to oppress them, who rapes them, who tells them they can't go to school, or that they are not allowed to drive, who traffics them, who picks them up off the street at night and pretends to be a police officer so that they can murder them, who denies them a promotion and gives that promotion to someone with a dick instead, who pays for sex with them and then rates them on Punternet like they would an Amazon purchase, who tells them they can't have an abortion, who does all of these things and all the other things, can easily tell they are female.

Stop making out like it's really difficult to tell or that it's irrelevant. You are making an utter tit of yourself.

I cannot speak for the biological aspects (that’s why I made the thread in the first place), but while I can’t speak for Rainbow, I would assume in the context of gender it is transitioning from identifying as one gender to identifying as another, something that would be extremely easy to determine as by nature it simply requires observing how the individual refers to themselves

So at its core it means someone makes a statement that they are one gender (you would need to unambiguously define 'gender' for me to understand what you wrote, as I have been given tons of definitions that don't align) and then consequently makes a statement that they are a different gender, and that second statement is what being transgender is.

In other words, it is the referring to oneself as trans that is being trans, and it therefore follows it is logically impossible to lie about being trans, as it's a performative statement (like "I pronounce you husband and wife" which actually makes a couple husband and wife).

Ah well, if nothing else this thread is a nice illustration of how disingenuous and plain nutty the TRA stance on this issue is.

I cannot speak for the biological aspects (that’s why I made the thread in the first place), but while I can’t speak for Rainbow, I would assume in the context of gender it is transitioning from identifying as one gender to identifying as another, something that would be extremely easy to determine as by nature it simply requires observing how the individual refers to themselves

How do we know that people are using language in similar ways to each other? If we're not then what is the meaning of how one refers to oneself? What about if they refer to themselves as one gender but actually feel like another due to perhaps fear, guilt or shame? Is identity always the same as how people refer to themselves? If that were the case then how can one ever change one's gender identity as the thought to want to would not be able to proceed the referring to oneself. Can you be less ambiguous please.

[quote RainbowBridge67]@anothersmahedmug

"Let's ignore the fact that not all transwomen are good people"

Yes, let's. Because like I said already, actions of individuals are not grounds for discrimination. Neither is "but what about crime statistics!"

"Harm occurs through msntal harm caused by previous trauma triggered by the male body"

Again, someone can similarly be traumatized against other racial groups. It's not grounds for exclusion and discrimination.[/quote]
What discrimination are you referring to when a male person is not allowed into female spaces? If you believe they are now female please define your terms.

Yes, let's. Because like I said already, actions of individuals are not grounds for discrimination. Neither is "but what about crime statistics!"

So you think that the fact that 98% of sexual crime is perpetrated by males is irrelevant then? And that women should just accept that and say 'well you can't tar everyone with the same brush so let's just let any male into spaces where we are vulnerable and hope for the best?

@Hasselhoffsheadband

Yes, let's. Because like I said already, actions of individuals are not grounds for discrimination. Neither is "but what about crime statistics!"

So you think that the fact that 98% of sexual crime is perpetrated by males is irrelevant then? And that women should just accept that and say 'well you can't tar everyone with the same brush so let's just let any male into spaces where we are vulnerable and hope for the best?

I think this statement is based on the erroneous belief that transwomen are not welcome in some spaces as a consequence of being trans when the reality is that they're not welcome as a consequence of being male.

If this poster truly believes that women are entitled to no protected spaces then it's not worth engaging at all as bigots will always bigot.

@Helleofabore

"And you are spreading some very dangerous misinformation. Telling this to transitioned males is incredibly dangerous for their health."

You know absolutely nothing about trans healthcare. The bodies of trans women undergoing medical transition are not medically the same as the bodies of cis men.

The changes hormones make to one's sex are an important factor, and what is medically dangerous is disregarding these changes by regarding trans women as just "biologically male", a reductive and insufficient classification.

Ffs

If everyone had the same options it's not discrimination

Everyone had the same right to a single sex space that is expected to be of equal quality and availability *

With single sex loos No one group had precedence over another so there is no discrimination

• actually when it comes to loo provision women are still discriminated against as they tend to have longer queues , so have to wait longer than men

It also negates the idea that someone has been that gender since birth, because it means that 'identifying as' and 'being' are distinct things.

E.g. A person says they identified as female, but now says they identify as male. This would fit the 'trans' definition Wombat gives.

But if that same person then says actually they always 'were' male in their true self, but only 'identified' as female, that implies that you can be male and identify as female at the same time, gender-wise.

Or if that person says they were never actually female, that means they wouldn't be trans, because they have not changed state by your definition.

You clearly know nothing about transgender health

The bodies of a transwomen must not be treated as it if was a woman . Dangerous beyond belief

Man is correct , although adjusting for any medication may be need

You know absolutely nothing about trans healthcare. The bodies of trans women undergoing medical transition are not medically the same as the bodies of cis men.

Well they sure as hell are nothing like the bodies of women.

By the way, I would say a penis is a pretty good indicator of being a male, but maybe that just my 'GCSE Biology' knowledge coming through there...

Please report transphobia

But it has to actually be transphobic
You know according to normal use of language

[quote RainbowBridge67]@bishophaha

"Ah, we've sunk to this level of debate. Go on then, how clever do I think I am? As clever as someone who claims to know what a stranger on an internet forum is thinking?"

You're a disingenuous transphobe pulling a facetious "actually the real transphobia is not misgendering trans people teehee" stunt.[/quote]
Aw, you're wrong. Good try at imagining I said anything about misgendering though.

@anothersmahedmug

You clearly know nothing about transgender health

The bodies of a transwomen must not be treated as it if was a woman . Dangerous beyond belief

Man is correct , although adjusting for any medication may be need

Yes, it could be dangerous to tell a Dr you are female when you are actually male for many reasons.

*You know absolutely nothing about trans healthcare. The bodies of trans women undergoing medical transition are not medically the same as the bodies of cis men.

The changes hormones make to one's sex are an important factor, and what is medically dangerous is disregarding these changes by regarding trans women as just "biologically male", a reductive and insufficient classification.*

But every male has unique risks and needs based on the conditions they have and medications they take. They are still biologically male and can never be female. It's not reductive to recognise them as the males they are whilst providing the individualised healthcare they need.

@titchy

"You specified 'biologically' male. Biologically they are male. Every cell in their body is male. With a Y chromosome and everything. Medically you are male."

So, sex is determined by sex and chromosomes. Alright.

By those criteria, this woman who has given birth is biologically male. Meaning that a male has given birth:
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

95% cells in her body are male, and she has a Y chromosome and everything. Which by your stated criteria, makes one biologically male.

*determined by cells and chromosomes

Rainbow people with DSD have been discussed throughout this thread. Do you think this is saying something different?

@anothersmahedmug

You clearly know nothing about transgender health

The bodies of a transwomen must not be treated as it if was a woman . Dangerous beyond belief

Man is correct , although adjusting for any medication may be need

Not the same as a cis woman, never did I say there are no differences whatsoever.

Not the same as a cis man either, so not "biologically male".

The only danger is people like you insisting on reductive, trans-hostile language like "biologically male", when "trans woman" conveys a lot more medically useful information.

You know absolutely nothing about trans healthcare. The bodies of trans women undergoing medical transition are not medically the same as the bodies of cis men.

The changes hormones make to one's sex are an important factor, and what is medically dangerous is disregarding these changes by regarding trans women as just "biologically male", a reductive and insufficient classification.

Ok. Specifically tell us exactly how this effects the ability for transitioned males to receive the blood from a female that has been pregnant?

And I think we do know quite well the changes to the male body upon transitioning. Their may be changes. But they are NOT female bodies. They can never be female bodies.

They are male bodies with modifications.

Until you can magically dematerialise a body to it atoms and make changes at the cellular level, the bodies of transitioned males will still be male with modifications. Stop suppression of testosterone, and if the body part is still their that body part will make testosterone.

If the body part is not there, then it is still a male body with modifications. And that body does require some unique health requirements but still health requirements specific to transitioned males.

Again. It is not a female body with modifications.