Sandie Peggie has lost her case against the nursing union.

[RhannionKPSS]

Terrible news

I find formal logic helpful here. Represent the axoims with placeholder symbols and the degree to which Genderist demands rely on linguistic fudge rather than honest argument is laid bare.

Lacksie, what do you have in common with, say, Dr Upton and Alex Drummond that makes you all women?

A quick look at Family Court law reports shows that some biological parents are absolute sh...to and no one would suggest that adoptive parents don't become true parents in providing lifelong love and support. Ditto for children born through egg or sperm donation or via surrogacy. I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute or "weaponise" that. But it's a stretch to say "man" or "woman" or indeed "badger" is just what the user means it to be.

Yes, definitely!

I fully agree. But with respect to my argument and Lacksie’s flailing here, it’s not about who is and isn’t a “true parent” - like Dr Upton being a biological male, it’s a simple fact that biological parents exist.

Of course biological parents are real - no one said otherwise. The point is that a term becomes a dog whistle through what the speaker is doing with it.

If the term ‘biological parent’ were being deployed for the purposes of claiming some parents (e.g. adoptive parents) aren’t REAL parents, it would be reasonable to call the use of the term, in that context, a nebulous dog whistle.

Yes I got that and I agree! I don’t know why Lacksie seems so sensitive on this particular point.

That there is one clear, consistent, scientific definition of woman/female. Which one — chromosomes, gametes, gonads, hormones, anatomy? They don’t always agree.

There is one clear consistent scientific definition of female and male and it is gametes: large immobile = female, small motile = male. This is consistent across all species. None of the others you suggest there could apply equally to humans, birds, snails and daffodils!!

Women are adult human female, just like adult feline females are tibs or adult equine females are mares.

The phrase "nebulous dog whistle" can itself be a nebulous dog whistle when used to avoid the content of an argument by claiming the stated argument is simply a placeholder for a different argument that is claimed to be presettled and therefore need not be addressed.

So ‘biological parents’ would be a nebulous dog whistle when determining if someone has a family history of a disease?

But Upton isn’t a real woman. He’s a real man.

Upton used the term “nebulous dog whistle” to pretend he didn’t understand Naomi asking him why he felt entitled to override women’s expressed preference for a biologically female Dr. And Lacksie is using it to avoid confronting that Upton is a man who felt entitled to override women’s boundaries around men.

Unless one changes the definition of Woman of course.

But given that impacts the identity, rights and self knowledge of half of humanity, surely no one would be so presumptuous as to just impose that on their fellow humans without open and honest debate, without explanation and justification, or without allowing those so impacted a genuine right to disagree and to in the worst case set up their own identities and agitate for their rights outside that new construction?

If a man (in the old sense) has the right to say he is now a woman (in the new sense), then surely a woman (in the old sense) has the right to say this new type of women does not include her?

And since the needs of her sex have not changed, and the rights and supports that exist to support her are there because of her sex not the word "woman", surely it follows that these things should stay with her not be made over to him?

The word ‘woman’ has never meant gametes. Pretending it has is reductive and false, however convenient it may be for you to claim it. Gametes are gametes; a woman is a person — not a snail, not a daffodil, a person. No one has ever decided whether someone is a woman by looking at their gametes. Plenty of women have no gametes at all. They’re still women.

The word ‘woman’ is over a thousand years old; gametes weren’t discovered until the 19th century.

No?

It would be reasonable to call it a nebulous dog whistle if it were being deployed for the purposes of claiming some parents aren’t REAL parents.

Don't be trivial. It undermines your case to play silly games.

The word "fall" had a clear meaning well before the mechanics of gravity were understood.

The word "woman" had a clear meaning well before the mechanics of biological sex were fully understood.

Understanding why a thing happens is not a prerequisite to observing it exists and naming it.

The word "Woman" means adult human female
as everybody knew full well
until predatory men tried to take over the word to invade female spaces

so now the definition has had to come down to SRY screening in sports
and legal cases
just because men will not take "no" for an answer

Indeed.

Just as "gender" is a nebulous dog whistle when deployed for the purposes of claiming a male bodied person's feelings make him somehow more like female person than a male one.

And to think you were questioning others reading comprehension…

I wrote Women are adult human females

Sex is defined by gametes and people certainly discovered eggs and seeds millenia before the 19th century. The role of pollen in reproduction was described in the 17th century roughly the same time as the role of eggs in female mammals was accepted and sperm were identified - though the role of semen was discussed by Aristotle in the 4th century BC.

Plenty of people have looked at women on the basis of their role in reproduction. Historically very few people would think about women without considering their reproductive role.

I’m not being trivial — this matters.

It undermines your case to trade in silly insults.

Your analogy breaks down on its own terms: ‘fall’ and ‘gravity’ aren’t the same kind of thing. ‘Fall’ names the movement you observe; gravity is the explanation for it.

And btw the production of large ‘gametes’ does not explain what makes a woman, unless you want to get seriously regressive here.

‘Woman’ names a person. Gametes are part of the biology that makes a body, but they have never been what defines a woman.

A woman born without ovaries, who has never produced a gamete in her life — is she a woman? If yes, then gametes aren’t what decides it, and you’ll need to tell me what does.

Woman names a person who is an adult human female.

A female is of the sex class who produce large immobile gametes even if that particular female is unable to produce those gametes

I see Lacksie never answered my question about what they have in common with Upton and Drummond that makes them all women. What a surprise.

Sigh. Another thread derailed by alcove and lacksie. Was hoping to read some discussion about the tribunal ruling, as per the thread title and opening post, but no.

Your replies are trivial. And they undermine your case. As does silly tit for tat point scoring.

A fall is not gravity like a woman is not gametes - that is my point.

Just as one does not need to know the mechanisms of gravity to see its effect, one doesn't need to know the mechanisms of biological sex to see its effect. And my wording was "mechanisms of biological sex". Not "gametes". Mechanisms of biological sex.

Female humans exist. We are different physically to male humans. This is an observable fact. Female humans are in our language named "woman and girls".

For some reason, you want those words, and those words only, to name something else.

Fine.

But the reality of female people will continue to exist. And you have not made any case whatsoever for why the words that name us should be deployed elsewhere.

I have never made any objection to recognising and labelling whatever it is you think Gender is under its own name. Only to appropriating the existing language of sex. That is the case you need to make if you want to prove your beliefs are fair and reasonable. To stop looking only at trans identities and consider the bigger meaning, the human meaning.

And I have never ever seen an honest case for this made yet.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I must learn to avoid posters who have shown themselves over multiple threads to have no interest in dialogue over than as openings for scoring points.

I used to just link back to posters' previous outings on the same points. That's probably worth doing again.