Sorry, but this is important.

A woman can menstrate (normally) a man cannot and does not, a woman can give birth (normally) a man cannot.

So on what basis do you decide that a particular, individual woman, who cannot menstruate or give birth is a woman? It can't be that other people can do those because we're talking about a specific person who can't.


Then there are the obvious differences.

What about people where the "obvious differences" are not obvious but are ambiguous. How do you classify them?
 
So on what basis do you decide that a particular, individual woman, who cannot menstruate or give birth is a woman? It can't be that other people can do those because we're talking about a specific person who can't.




What about people where the "obvious differences" are not obvious but are ambiguous. How do you classify them?
Such as?
 
WRONG
If you were born a female at birth then you are a woman. End of!!!

All I'm doing is asking you to define what characteristics someone has to have to be a woman. First you say that it's someone who can menstruate or give birth, then you say it's wrong to say that someone who can't do those things isn't a woman. The logic there can only be that being able to menstruate or give birth is irrelevant.

So we're back to the question - what characteristics does someone have to have to be classified as female?
 
All I'm doing is asking you to define what characteristics someone has to have to be a woman. First you say that it's someone who can menstruate or give birth, then you say it's wrong to say that someone who can't do those things isn't a woman. The logic there can only be that being able to menstruate or give birth is irrelevant.

So we're back to the question - what characteristics does someone have to have to be classified as female?
OMG if you really want to go deeper than the obvious then a woman has two X chromasones and a male has XY chromosones, a woman has larger hips for child birth so you need to look at the skeleton. There is no need to go this far though, it is simple to know the difference. A man may think he is a woman but that is all in his head. The biological differences cannot be hidden.
 
those who make a full transition from one to another by the means of surgery, no half measures though. They may use each others changing and toilet facilities, those who just think that they are the opposit sex may not.

I don't for one second think that a man should automatically have access to women-only spaces just by saying "I identify as a woman", and I've always said that.
There are genuine and justified concerns about how to deal with trans people in the context of same-sex spaces such as prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence refuges, and how to ensure fairness in sport, for example,
 
What I've been arguing about, basically are

a) that I think we need a proper approach to dealing with transgender people which fairly, and without prejudice, takes into account the interests of everybody

b) that anti-trans beliefs cannot be justified on the grounds that sex is binary, because it isn't.


There are people here who really don't want (a), and refuse, no matter what explanations they are shown, to accept the truth of (b).

Their refusal, and their denials, are so intense that some lose all sense of reason, and say that because I think we should strive for a fair and inclusive society I want to deny the rights of some people in it, or that because I show the non-binary nature of every characteristic put forward by them as binary determinants of sex, I believe a man becomes entitled to be treated as a woman when he puts lipstick on, despite what I wrote in the opening post of this thread.
 
Show us your definition of a woman.

It will be interesting to see if it says "...and any man who self identifies as a woman."

It's unlikely to, don't you think, given what I said back in post #1?

I don't for one second think that a man should automatically have access to women-only spaces just by saying "I identify as a woman", and I've always said that.

Or are you accusing me of not being truthful when I wrote that?
 
I am, however, interested in women having the right to spaces and events where people are not admitted if they are not women.

I find it curious that you and people like you wish to deny them that right.

What makes you think I want to deny them that right, given what I wrote in post #1?

There are genuine and justified concerns about how to deal with trans people in the context of same-sex spaces such as prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence refuges, and how to ensure fairness in sport, for example,

Or are you accusing me of not being truthful when I wrote that?
 
What I've been arguing about, basically are

a) that I think we need a proper approach to dealing with transgender people which fairly, and without prejudice, takes into account the interests of everybody

The interests of everybody includes the right of women to have access to spaces and events that people who are not women do not have the right to enter.

You fiercely oppose that right.
 
The interests of everybody includes the right of women to have access to spaces and events that people who are not women do not have the right to enter.

You fiercely oppose that right.

Why are you accusing me of that?

Is it because of this?

There are genuine and justified concerns about how to deal with trans people in the context of same-sex spaces such as prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence refuges, and how to ensure fairness in sport, for example,
 
Back
Top