denad

Thoughts of his own death,
like the distant roll
of thunder at a picnic

- WH Auden
(just read and loved this and had to document it somewhere)

I have tried, patiently & in good faith, to show you how your position is anti-scientific. You cannot even bring yourself to say something so axiomatic as "human beings have two sexes". If you abandoned your ideology and engaged simple reason for one minute, we may have been able to get somewhere

You can say it, you can even believe it, but that does not make it so. What you are talking about here is literally feelings over reality - the exact anti-scientific, regressive rhetoric at the heart of this issue

You really don't know what you're discussing here.

"Self ID" doesnt just mean "no means of checking", its a specific term re: using a space one identifies with, eg "I'm a biological male, but I ID as female, so Im using Female".
But you cant self id as female any more than you can self id as a cat.

You must be winding me up, at this point.

Do you understand the difference between "identify as" and "is"?
You can't 'self identify' as male or female because it's already fixed from the womb. It just IS, and no amount of feelings or wishing can change it.

Who's asking to prove a right to access?? We already established no-one is demanding this, it's simply knowing one's own sex. That's it. What's the complication, Gavin, what aren't you understanding?

Who mentioned a birth certificate?

I am, & have been, explaining to you. Its basic biology - are you pretending not to know, or genuinely ignorant?

There are two sexes - male & female, most often & accurately identified at birth by external genitalia. If there is any ambiguity, further tests can confirm gamete production pathway.

It sounds like that to you bc you dont know what you're talking about, & why Im having to walk you through this.

A person does not "self ID" as female, any more than a cat or horse does. Its biology, they just ARE male or female.

So, again, do you understand that humans are either male or female?

Again, not my definition, the *biological* definition.

If you refuse to acknowledge, or are ignorant of, the difference between males & females, you cannot possibly understand the discussion around single-sex spaces.

You cant discuss "female-only spaces" if you don't know what female means

Except you have argued the science, you said transwomen are female. Biologically, they are male.
So, am I to understand you are correcting that now, and accept tw are male?

If so, we can move on to the practicalities of single-sex vs unisex access to spaces...

"mammals are biologically 1 of 2 sexes" is simply scientific observation. The philosophy may come later, but here either you agree, or have evidence to the contrary, so I'll ask again:

As with other mammals, humans are -biologically- one of two sexes, male or female. There is no 3rd gamete.

Agree?

Au contraire, I'm starting at the beginning as you seem to want to conveniently skip a few key steps.
Let's take it even slower:

As with other mammals, humans are -biologically - one of two sexes, male or female. The is no third gamete.

Agree so far?

You are making two - contradictory - arguments here:

1) TW are female
2) 'female' is an irrelevant criterion

1) is just factually incorrect. It is an anti-scientific, regressive stance. The science must be understood before it is deemed relevant or not. So you must tackle 1) before broaching 2)

And this is my point as it relates to Green Party/LW groups - anyone willing to say "this bit of scientific fact is inconvenient to our membership, so we're going to ignore it" is *exactly* what RW ppl/parties do with climate change etc. Shameful when their side does it, shameful when ours does.

Gavin, YOU used the word 'female'. Its not *my* definition, its just *the actual* definition.
Again, you are proving the point of your position being anti-scientific by trying to change a words meaning from biological to pseudo-spiritual.

You can argue biology is irrelevant. You can't overwrite it

Because you don't know what female means.
Look up the biological definition of female, and you'll see where you went wrong

I can, and have - people know their sex & act accordingly. If you're male, don't go in the female-only space.

I'm just curious as to why you think biological definition implies "policing", but gender definition does not, when they are both saying "some people can enter, some cant"..?

Do you not think the distinction is important? You don't believe in any women-only spaces, even if that were to include transwomen?

No-one mentioned "policing access to toilets" until you brought it up. What about biological definitions of 'male' & 'female' suggests "inspection at the door", rather than people simply knowing their sex and acting accordingly...?

How do you propose policing access to toilets based on gender identity?

Again, this conversation started by discussing GPs abandonment of science in precisely this department. All you have to do is show how transwomen fit into the biological def. of "female" to prove me wrong.
If you can't, then we can agree self ID is an Anti-scientific policy

Biological definition of Female:
"of, relating to, or being an animal or human of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction."
Explain how transwomen fall under this category...

There is NOT a biological explanation of "trans women are female". That is the fundamental point here. 'Female' is a biological category into which, by definition, transwomen do not fall. To use it in the way you just have is to literally ignore the science.

How convenient for you, that you can convince yourself there's no point debating, and thus not have to answer any question that may upset or challenge your beliefs. If your position had any substance, you would be able to respond.
Alas....

You seem to have forgotten how this conversation started - the wilful abandonment of science. With a statement like "trans women are female" you serve as a fine example of such abandonment. The ONLY way you can say that is if your def. of "female" rejects the biological in favour of belief

How is it a different situation?
Someone is saying, "actively participate in my belief - even if you dont personally share it - so that my belief is validated".

The parallel is obvious. If you dont see it, its bc youre being wilfully blind. Non-belief should be respected - regardless of the belief

The fact they are used interchangeably proves the point that the accepted definition of "woman" was, and is, biological - a women-only space means a female-only one. Any point about males using them without issue is moot - they shouldn't have been there

Absurd. There are many examples of UK law, prior to 2010, using the term "women" synonymously with "female" - eg when discussing "women's rights" around pregnancy.

Why do you think this is?

You do not have to actively participate in a belief you do not hold to show respect. That is showing subservience.

Say a man of faith asked an atheist to pray with them, & the atheist refused.
Are they being disrespectful, or exercising a right not to participate in a belief they dont share?