"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 ?

So if a transwoman, whose ‘transness’ was based on how they felt, but whose reproductive anatomy was entirely male, went to the GP what type of contraception would be appropriate?

And, of course, the overwhelming majority of sexual predators are male. There is no objective means to distinguish between a transwoman and a predator pretending to be a transwoman. Does this really need spelling out?

we have specific services, sports etc divided by sex for a variety of good reasons. I’ve never seen any convincing arguments why anything at all should be divided on the basis of ‘gender’.

@Tandora, how would you answer your daughter if she said this to you?

They would require condoms or a vasectomy.

Because….?

From my data that’s not correct.
Single sex toilets can have door gaps. To put it bluntly, in case this thread runs out of posts, this design puts men off as if they are attacking in the cubicle, they’ll have witnesses. Single sex designs (the ones with door gaps) I believe can prevent assaults.
IF single sex toilets are ambiguous in terms of who is using them, then the design changes and they become private.
Unisex toilets are always private. It’s in building regs.
Children and women are raped in toilets that are in very public areas - but it’s private ones that’s the problem - concealment.

Single sex (with door gaps) is safer but it has to be single sex for that.

In the same way I would handle if she were assaulted by a "green" person at school and she said that she didn't want to be in a school with "green" people anymore.

Because they have a penis and testes.

Because they are male? Or are condoms and vasectomies also for female people?

Here lies @KateShugakIsALegend

Blanked by @Tandora

For reasons unknown

Maybe the questions were too hard....

sorry there's a lot of people talking to me. Remind me again what you wanted to ask?

And they are objectively….,what sex?

It depends what you mean by "sex". And that's what this thread was about.

The misunderstanding here is of women's boundaries and the aims of safe guarding.

Lol

But those penises and testes would be entirely unproblematic in a female-only changing room? No one could possibly object?

But how does one identify the green petiole when green people have convinced everyone that they are in fact purple and if you do not play along with the game you’re reported to your employer and are suspended pending and investigation, and your daughter is expelled for refusing to play along?

Not all trans women have a penis and testes. Where they do they tend to be exceptionally private about them.

I think it has long been established that some posters have no interest in safeguarding principles.

That was a cracker, thank you

🤣

Castration does not imply that the sexual pathway was defective.
Privacy is not a symptom of a dsd.

Transwomen who no longer have a penis had one before. If you can't tell yourself this truth then you also can't define a transwoman. And you negate their very existence.

"Not all trans women have a penis and testes. Where they do they tend to be exceptionally private about them."

This is a lovely blanket statement and overgeneralisation.

In fact, it can reasonably be said that around the same proportion of male people with transgender identities are 'private' about their testicles and penises as all other male people.

This is where robust safeguarding risk assessment comes in.

We have the MoJ prisoner statistics that can be used to show that male people at any stage of transition do not have a reduced risk of committing sex crimes when compared to the rest of the male population of the UK. There is absolutely no indication that this group of male people have the same risk of committing sex crimes as female people.

It is this blind adherence to statements such as this that show a level of ideological belief to the exclusion of being able to make rational and reasonable decisions about this group of male people.

And it all seems to come down to some posters who wish to present a case that some male people with a philosophical belief that does not reflect material reality should not be treated as all other male people. It comes down to some people believe that this group of male people, those with a philosophical belief that does not reflect material reality, should be excluded from legitimate discrimination.

Remember, of course, there is no biological or neurological markers that can be used to test whether someone is 'transgender'. The only commonality that this group shares is their philosophical belief. Laws and policies around safeguarding are not shaped by the potential of future discoveries, only what is known right now.

The questions that always remain. Why does one group of male people expect to be treated as if they are not male based on their philosophical belief when this belief does not reflect material reality?

Who benefits from this? (and the answer to this is 'Not female people or children')

Thank goodness this suffering is almost over.