Page 22 | Sandie Peggie has lost her case against the nursing union.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Today 18:30

Set up a breakout thread to move my derail elsewhere

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5596067-mechanisms-of-biological-sex-and-the-social-consequences-thereof

Rockyroadminibites · Today 18:36

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

You think defining women just by their basic biology, where they can dress, behave and present how they wish and carry out any role, is regressive? I presume you think defining women by hair length, clothes, makeup, tits and ‘feminine feels’ is somehow progressive?

Lacksie · Today 18:43

FlirtsWithRhinos · Today 18:21

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.

Show quote history

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Datun · Today 18:59

Lacksie · Today 18:43

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Edited

Show quote history

Oh for goodness sake. Gametes do determine sex. Not necessarily whether you produce them, but whether your body is organised around the production of small ones or large ones.

Someone disguising themself as the opposite sex is irrelevant to that classification.

And transwomen aren't called women because they look like women. Transwomen are called women because some people want to accommodate them. Or because some people are petrified of not doing it.

AccidentallyWesAnderson · Today 19:03

Lacksie · Today 18:43

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Edited

Show quote history

‘It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.’

No, it simply isn’t. You’re either born a woman or you’re not. You can dress it up all you like (pun intended) but humans are hard wired to tell which is which without checking gametes or genitals, no matter how you style your hair, how much make up you put on or what clothes you put on your body. It’s present through every cell in your body. Trans women aren’t women, or else they would just be…. Women! And you wouldn’t be on this forum arguing that they are. I’ve never had to argue the toss that I’m a woman and you have no idea how I present or what I wear or how I live my life.

Rockyroadminibites · Today 19:04

Lacksie · Today 18:43

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Edited

Show quote history

You are still ignoring the fact that sex is a biological classification that is consistent across species. It is not unique to Homo sapiens.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Today 19:24

Lacksie · Today 18:43

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Edited

Show quote history

Stop accusing me of making "personal insults". I said your points are trivial, not you. Whether you chose to continue or not is entirely up to you. Claiming you want to have a conversation but are too hurt to continue is convincing no one.
I have started a dedicated thread for this topic so as not to derail this one. Welcome to join us. I'll aim to include links to previous outings on the same topic too. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5596067-mechanisms-of-biological-sex-and-the-social-consequences-thereof
Oh dear, bad use of AI mate! I would be laughed out of the office for that! AI gives you what you want to hear but unevidenced assertions are still unevidenced even when AI wraps them in confident prose. If you want to repost that AI slop (again not insulting you, just the AI content you posted) on the new thread I'll happily demolish it for you.

Shortshriftandlethal · Today 19:27

Lacksie · Today 18:43

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Edited

Show quote history

That's because women are female and 'transwomen' are male. 'Transwomen' are a category of 'male' not a category of female. Female is a biological category and 'woman' is the word we give to adult human females. Males are, by nature, excluded from the category of Female

StealthTroublemaker · Today 19:32

Lacksie · Today 17:10

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.

Show quote history

So what is a woman? Without using sexist offensive stereotypes, nebulous feelings or the word woman, define woman…. I dare you.

StealthTroublemaker · Today 19:33

Lacksie · Today 18:43

I see you want to continue the personal insults, so this will be the last of your posts that I read or respond to.

we agree on more than you think. Biological mechanisms exist, they have observable effects, female people exist and will go on existing, and all of that can be named. Nobody here has denied any of it, so it doesn't need defending.

What I don't accept is the step you keep skipping: that those mechanisms sort people cleanly into two kinds, and that 'woman' is simply the name for one of them. That's a classification, not an observation — you've already had to retreat from 'produces gametes' to 'mechanisms of biological sex' to keep it standing. And in practice 'woman' has never been applied by checking any of those mechanisms. It's applied by recognition — how someone lives, how they're seen, how they're treated. That's how you've been called a woman every day of your life, and nobody checked your gametes and few your genitals. Trans women are called women in exactly that way by the people who know them.

"The existing language of sex" is your framing, not a fact. The word has always been the language of recognition. And 'have your own word' isn't the neutral offer you try to make it sound like. If everyone else is a woman and trans women get a different word, the different word exists to mark them out. That's the exclusion, restated politely.

Edited

Show quote history

Well yes, TIM would be excluded from the same group as women. As they are not women…. Hope this helps 🤣🤣🤣🤣

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · Today 19:42

Perhaps a minor point but defining terms in context doesn't mean dragging in every context that can be thought of to bludgeon about and avoid the discipline of staying in one.
That's doing post-modernism wrong.

Also, certain terms describe ideas that do change in different contexts. Dissonance meant a very different thing in Gregorian chant, to Bach, to Stravinsky, and it's worth hashing that out in order to discuss it.
One cannot however argue that a trombone can be a flute because no matter what it's called when one blows down it it makes the sound of a trombone and can never sound like a flute. Oh and that's the sort of flute one usually sees in an orchestra, I could go into things like nose flutes but it stiil won't make them into trombones.

Anyone who sees the relevance of this post will see it, everyone else can ignore it, I really don't mind.