"Trans women ARE biological women"

[TangenitalContrivance]

I see this argument and comment more and more the last few weeks and hugely over the last 3 days.

For example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1k1tliv/trans_women_are_biological_women/

This statement, and the comments underneath it absolutely baffle me.

The approach, one that I am sure will only work with a minority of the people who said TWAW, is to undermine the definition of words, yet again, and deliberately cloud the water when it comes to speaking clearly and using terms that everyone agrees with

I have seen it said in more places than Reddit however, and by respected people

Winston focuss on one aspect fertility - most genetics expert disagree. We don’t understand genetics fully - people with dominant brown eyes gene dont always have brown eyes - its more complicated than that. That’s my point - XY gene doesnt always equal male - its much more complicated than that.

The definition is just a definition - I’m not pro trans - its just there are things us humans still do not understand - we like categories things - mammals share similar characteristics - but when you get down to fish its wild - they can look the same and have totally different characteristics.

Why are humans different? Political, social, moral reasons - we are not special or easily defined. Just because its accepted doesn't make it true.

Reddit is full of opinionated, clueless men (mostly) obviously there are some women there too, but any politics thread skews towards the male perspective. The worst thing about it is the censorship though, these men are happy to fart out their nonsensical pronouncements because they are rarely challenged, because any hint of “transphobia” and you get sanctioned. Many mods are TRAs or TRAs adjacent. Some of them extremely problematic men.

Are these the trans people I should be getting to know?

https://terfisaslur.com/

Why are you banging on about DSDs which have absolutely nothing to do with being transgender? One is sex based, the other is gender.

Edit - oh fuck, I missed a bit
we like categories things - mammals share similar characteristics - but when you get down to fish its wild - they can look the same and have totally different characteristics.

please go back to school

To try and obfuscate.

Transwoman I know have recently been describing themselves as of female’ sex and so therefore they are a biological woman. Which they know isn’t true either.

Mine too. Very tedious. Is the eloquent guy Gerald the barrister chap?

How is it I. The animal and plant kingdom we can correctly identify male and female but for humans it’s apparently more complicated?

That is a remarkable post on reddit OP.

I genuinely wish I shared your confidence.

However, having seen not only these sorts of arguments made in court but also read the first instance judgment in Maya Forstater's case I am very nervous about leaving this kind of nonsense sitting there unchallenged.

Gems from that judgment include referring to Maya's "belief" in the fact that sex in humans is immutable as "absolutist" and when considering whether her views met the test of cogency and coherence states,

"Her 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. The Claimant largely ignores intersex conditions and the fact that biological opinion is increasingly moving away from a absolutist approach [...] On balance, I do not consider that the Claimant’s belief fails the test of being “attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance”; even though there is significant scientific evidence that it is wrong." (Truncated so as not to bore but all the bits in between are astonishing too).

That was the level of understanding in the Employment Tribunal of this land just a few short years ago, apparently. The judge who wrote that now sits on the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in the Crown Court.

So I take your point, but I struggle!

I know but they will ALWAYS have the missing piece of the puzzle...the XX chromosome

I clearly remember my university professor saying to me:

”Remember that just because you don’t understand how something works, it does not mean that it is not very well understood by those who are experts in the topic”.

What in the Butlerian flapdoodle are you talking about?

I've not RTFT but it's just flat earthism. Kind of fascinating in a batshit kind of way.

Send all the TRAs and TW off to the USA. The word "sex" is a naughty word there, so only "gender" is allowed. They will be happy there so.

Oh wait a minute.....

That's all very interesting, and I can imagine having a good conversation about it with you, but it would just be chit-chat between me and you, as neither of us would claim to be an expert in biology or genetics or anything like that - at least, I wouldn't.

But at this point we are beyond chit-chat, we now have a Supreme Court ruling that sex in equality legislation means biological sex, and that means either male or female. We don't have to keep fighting over definitions any more.

I'm prepared to accept the definition of male and female given by people who - unlike us, user1492538376 - have spent decades studying subjects like genetics and biology and so on.

I know it all gets a bit nebulous when you look at fish and the likes, there's nowt as queer as clownfish for instance, and we could have an interesting conversation about all that.

But for now I'd rather stick to human beings, and the significant and provable distinction between male humans and female humans, and how the law deals with that reality.

Butlerian flapdoodle! 😆 love it!

Although I should perhaps say instead 'one can only be convinced of such arguments of the nature of the symptom called 'love' by individual bystanders if one first considers the history of the condition of love and the definition of the word it'.

I asked you what is the third sex, you haven't answered.

That’s my point - XY gene doesnt always equal male - its much more complicated than

Yes. Because X and Y are chromosomes so you need to consider genes specifically the SRY gene

Credit for that one goes to @SionnachRuadh, I love it.

Chromosomally they are not - they are XY or very very occassionally some derivative of that.
Reproductively they are not - they would have produced the small gametes, not the large ones, even if they have had their testicles removed (which very very few have)
Hormonally they are not - they do not naturally produce hormones in the range which is considered normal for females, they have to take hormones and hormone suppressants to get in any way near to the female range, again, even if they remove their testes.
Physically they are not - they have not naturally developed the primary or secondary physical characteristics that differentiate between the sexes, not without surgery or taking hormones. If they have gone through puberty they will have a mans body, strength, and physique.
Immunologically they are not - interesting programme on R4 about immunological response, comparing men, women and trans men and women. No amount of hormone taking or suppression changed the immune advantage that women have.
There are over 1600 biological differences between the male and female body and simply messing with the hormones and some surgery, is not going to come close to altering evein a tiny percentage of that. Its writ deep in our cells and set down at point of conception.

Winston focuss on one aspect fertility - most genetics expert disagree.

Which genetic experts, can you name one?

My sex based rights aren't conditional on how trans people feel.

This. All day, every day.

As a one time sci fi geek, "Butlerian" always makes me think of the Butlerian Jihad... which I guess is a pretty good name for the quasi-religious TRA crusaders.

Male and female are reproductive categories. The terms and concept applies across sexually reproducing species. They refer to the producers of small gametes and large gametes respectively.

The point is precisely that humans are not different. The categories apply to them as consistently as they apply to all others.

The person arguing for human exceptionalism is you.