"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Discuss

[dunBle]

To save further derailment of the Sandie Peggie tribunal threads with people debating Tandora's statements on the above theme, I've started this thread to point them to instead.

@Tandora You may just have had more urgent posts, but I attempted a summary of your argument on Page 27. I do genuinely want to understand your position. It took a while. If it's roughly correct please let me know?

You get a photo of the chromosomes if you have a CVS tedt at 11 weeks, as I did when I discovered I was carrying an XY son. Nobody assigned this at birth, 30 weeks later, everyone already knew he was male. Grasping.

@Tandora @suggestionsplease1

See my posts at 11:14 and previous.

Are my questions unclear?

Would clarifications help? Happy to clarify if that is the blocker stopping you responding.

You see the bit where you put "Correct so far?"

Nope.

Hope that is helpful for you. 😊

Honesty posters on here crack me up:

"a rapidly growing cadre of people with perfectly good male or female bodies who have a mental issue with their self image and feelings."

"The above has now been clarified in law by the Supreme Court."

"Correct so far?"

😂😂😂

But we can tell almost 100% of the time.

None of these angry trans identifying males demanding access to female only spaces pass.

Have no objection to questions 1) and 2) and would entirely agree that these are things. Not sure anyone would say otherwise.

Q. 3) I would disagree that variations to 1) and 2) are "vanishingly" rare. What does the insertion of the word "vanishingly" mean in this context?
As for - "not germane to discuss?"
I am baffled as to how you managed to reach a conclusion that it is not "germane" to discuss the complex biological realities of sex development, and it's variations, in a conversation about what 'sex' is.

4. Question is not remotely clear/ logical question fallacy. Also transphobic.

There you go. These questions weren't really worthy of a response but I gave you one anyway. Hope that helps.

Multidimensional? Are you talking about alternative universes? It would explain a lot.

Lol I missed the bit where they said that these things had been "clarified by the supreme court".

Baffling.

You're this close to getting it.

I'll help you out.

By insisting that trans women are women, trans activists are essentially trying to delete the word "woman", or at the least, delete the word for "adult female human" by changing the definition of the word "woman" so that it no longer means "adult female human".

If the word "woman" is redefined or deleted from language altogether, you are entirely correct, women/female people will continue to exist in reality.

But it's very difficult to attach any rights to a group of people with no name. How do you explain who has these rights and why?

That's why it is so important that the Supreme Court confirmed that the word "woman" does in fact mean "female human", and that trans women are not female. It means we continue to exist in law as a distinct, recognised category of people with our own specific sex based rights.

Excellent, thank you. Which bit is incorrect, in your view?

Can you help me understand where we diverge?

It's not a disorder of sexual development, it is a mental health disorder.

Vanishing - well under 1percent. Do you disagree? And if so, can you explain why please?

What mistake do you imagine has been made when a baby known to have a Y chromosome is born with male external genitalia and his sex is recorded as male?

Ah, to unbaffle you, I meant that the SC had clarified as follows:

The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. It holds that the terms “man”, “woman”
and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex. Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler give
a joint judgment, with which the other Justices agree

@Tandora

I appreciate you're cherry picking, but I'd appreciate some clarity on this

I would say that something which occurs less than 0.02% of the time qualifies as "vanishingly rare", yes.

Vanishingly rare means exceptionally rare.

Do you feel that category 4 :

a rapidly growing cadre of people with perfectly good male or female bodies who have a mental issue with their self image and feelings

does not exist?

That all people who feel they are trans are in category 3.

That is to say, all trans people have DSD?

So what you meant was the supreme court had clarified:

"that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex".

But for some reason, what you said was that the supreme court had clarified:

"There are:

• men (lots of variation and degrees of masculinity)
• women (ditto, femininity)
• a vanishingly small number of people with DSD, most identified at birth (not germane to these discussions)
• a rapidly growing cadre of people with perfectly good male or female bodies who have a mental issue with their self image and feelings"

You can perceive, perhaps, how that might have been confusing.😂

Thank you for your clarification.

Thanks, and if you can keep your tone respectful, I would appreciate it.

The Supreme Court is saying that there are men and there are women, full stop.

Or do you interpret that differently?

The Supreme Court is saying that there are men and there are women, full stop.

No they didn't say anything like this at all.

They said that -

for the purposes of interpreting specific words used in the context of the Equalities Act 2010 (which sets out laws related to discrimination, harassment and victimisation) 'sex' means 'biological sex' (which they defined as sex 'at birth') and 'woman' means 'biological woman' (woman at birth) and 'man' means 'biological man' (man 'at birth').

Are your previous posts relevant to the Equality Act?

Thanks Tandora,

I am not following your point.

They are talking about a category called men and a category called women - there are no third categories.

Do you agree that they only mentioned two categories?

@Tandora It would help me in replying to your other posts if you are able to come back on this point.