LLMMLL wrote: » Not meaningless at all. My conceptualization of women includes transwomen and cis women. But an exclusive definiton is impossible.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Your conceptuslisations are irrelevant. The biological reality is that a male cannot become a female. You've thankfully conceded this point. And as such, a trans-women cannot be a women. If you are unhappy with this, well then take it up with mother nature.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » So, what are some differences between those sub groups?
LLMMLL wrote: » I prefer to unify rather than divide
LLMMLL wrote: » It shows that pretty much nobody uses the word female in the way you define apart from scientists working on specific Areas. The rest of the world uses the word female In a completely different way and will continue to do so.
2u2me wrote: » Thailand have a long history with transgender people. Since the 60's they've used 'Katoey' that translated to anyone who deviated from the dominant sexual norms. Which came to be known as trasnsgender and which now includes effeminate homosexual men. Since then it became more about being a third gender reserved for male to female transgender people. . (Since comparibly there are virtually no female-to-male transgender people). I've seen it used in both a derogatory way and an effectionate way. Kathoeys are more visible and more accepted in Thai culture than transgender people are in other countries in the world. Nowadays they often use other words that translate to 'woman of the second type' as katoey has become politically incorrect.
joeguevara wrote: » Katoeys are still biologically male. In essence a transvestite. Absolutely beautiful one though but not really appropriate to discussing biological sex. I agree they appear as or even more feminine than most but they have a penis, they have xy chromosomes unless ravaged by hormones ability to produce sperm, Adam’s Apple etc. Shaving Adam’s Apple and turning a penis inside out and having a boob job may make them look like a woman, still biologically a man.
LLMMLL wrote: » The rest of the world uses the word female In a completely different way and will continue to do so.
2u2me wrote: » Eh? Are all transgender travestite? I think you are getting confused somewhere. Some transgender in Thailand refer to themselves as kathoeys. Obviously they haven't changed their biology; that was not my point. Only that the whole world doesn't use the world female the way this poster expects them to.
2u2me wrote: » Eh? Are all transgender travestite? I think you are getting confused somewhere. Some transgender in Thailand refer to themselves as kathoeys. Obviously they haven't changed their biology; that was not my point. Only that the whole world doesn't use the world female the way this poster expects them to. In Thailand they often make a clear distinction between woman and a transgender woman.
joeguevara wrote: » Woman is not the same definition as female. Its all in the thread.
2u2me wrote: » Fair enough! In Thailand they make a clear distinction between female and transgender female. My apologies for using female and woman interchangeably!
joeguevara wrote: » Not at all. Yes a katsoey will use the pronoun she, say kha which is a female way instead of Khap used by Male, use female toilets etc but will say that she is a katoeympr ladyboy and would laugh if someone said she was a real female. Majority never get the op but some will.its a real forward approach as they are happy being a katoey no one looks down on them. I know their Id used to say Male but not sure if that was changed. Rarely would they say they want to be in a woman’s body as they are in a recognised aNd socially acceptable 3rd
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Yes because wanting to prevent women being sexually assaulted and/or raped in prison by a male is so awful. God, where's my decency!
Gatling wrote: » Managing what exactly How many people did it effect here . And why were there a big push for or here if only it suited a tiny number people here .
Smith152 wrote: » I wasn't simply referring to sport in Ireland.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you REALLY want to prevent women being sexually assaulted or raped, you have lots of actual targets available to you, such as the men who assault, sexually assault and rape women every day here. But instead, you focus on one very narrow theoretical niche scenario. I'm not too convinced about your objective here.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Oh, I know. I know that Ireland handed away some of my rights five years ago. And apparently, nOtHiNg HaS hApPeNeD. Apart from a male sex offender being housed in a women’s prison and needing extra prison guards to mind that one prisoner. So reassuring for the other inmates! But LOL, silly women.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » What game has been lost, Stark? Despite being piled on by charmers telling Rowling to suck their ladydick and whatnot (remember: the right side of history), not one of her tweets on the topic were ratioed, her agency and publisher stood by her and a good scatter of mainstream publications defended her too. Seems like she enjoyed a lot of support to me. And she has stood firm. What game did she lose, Stark?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You know that Limerick prison accommodates men and women, right? Don't believe everything you read in the Sun. In fact, don't believe anything you read in the Sun.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So brave of her to stand firm - just her, her Twitter account and all the resources that her billion or so in assets can provide. Such a brave soul, punching down on trans people...
joeguevara wrote: » So, in the future when hormone treatment is superior and can replicate turnIng off genes like they can do in mice in humans then it will be possible to change sex of a person. Just becsuse it cannot be done in humans now doesn’t mean it’s not applicable. Using examples of mice and fish as a way of transforming sex means to simply state the inalienable fact is carving out swathes of information in order to make it easier to explain/teach/discuss. So i don’t have to take it up with Mother Nature. She already has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You weren't referring to sport in Ireland at all. It's a bit strange to be getting so obsessed around one small detail of sports administration in other countries. Any thoughts on promotion of female participation in sports in Wyoming or Somalia or other interesting places? Nah, not enough drama there for you, right?
Gruffalox wrote: » Hibo Wardere lives in the UK. You can see parts of it across the sea from places here on clear days! She is from Somalia. It is in the UK that she is accosted by UK bullies who attack her for speaking out on UK soil about female genital mutilation. FGM that happens in the UK. Because using the word female is transphobic. Did the women who call other women in this thread hear that - Hibo Wardere is a transphobe too. Good company for me. Fantastic woman.
randomchild wrote: » Reddit has banned the gender critical subreddit, once again emphasing the fact that big tech companies should have never been given the keys to the world's communication channels.
LLMMLL wrote: » Many scientists are good at the day to day work of science but completely ignorant about the sociological philosophical cultural and political aspects of science. The really good scientists are aware of all these things and can successfully integrate them into the overall practice of science. Others are just worker bees, good at following the methods of their individual specialty but not having much of a scientific mindset outside of that.
LLMMLL wrote: » No need to. Your post perfectly demonstrates it Pity it fails to define woman.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Cis women, straight women, trans women, gay women, butch women, femme women, black women, white women, Asian women, Latina women, fertile women, infertile women, hairy women, sporty women, lazy women, creative women, autistic women, maternal women, etc etc etc All women. Not all the same. simples. That is how I see it. And as long as none of them tell me what kind of woman I should be I'm happy for them to be whatever kind of woman they want to be because it's none of my damn business.
OscarMIlde wrote: » I'm not ignorant of the cultural ramifications of science. We held regular ethics classes in undergraduate where we hashed out real world implications of scientific advances. However really none of the arguments brought forward by either you or Jack have anything to do with science. When you're pressed on biological realities the issue is either avoided by not replying directly or clouded in paragraphs of irrelevant waffle. The closest either of you get to defining why transwomen are women is stereotypical guff about wearing feminine clothes and womanly feelings, whatever the hell they are. The reality is we are not hermaphrodites, it is not possible to change biological sex. There are some people who due to developmental defects will not have fully developed as a distinct biological sex, we class these people as intersex. Development is a highly complex process, and the full biological development of a human occurs not just in utero but continues throughout life, with the full adult expression of the biological sex of a person manifesting during puberty. The hormonal cascades of puberty are not just linked to development of functional adult gonads and secondary sexual characteristics like breast development, deepening voice and facial hair. They also effect the developing brain and growth of a person. Attempting to alter these signalling pathways in pre-teens/teens to 'treat' transgenderism has untold effects on all these areas. The signalling pathways of cells are incredibly complex and difficult to elucidate. No one can state with any certainty that these hormonal interventions are safe. Children being given these treatments are guinea pigs. They will certainly suffer from it if a few years down the line they decide they actually want to 'revert' to their real biological sex, as it is not possible to reverse the effects of these hormone treatments. I don't see how children are psychologically, emotionally or mentally well equipped to make life changing decisions such as these. In addition they most likely will be at increased risk of hormonally driven cancers in later life. Yet you blithely advocate for 'treatments' such as these, despite the medical and psychological risks attached, and claim that I am the one lacking scientific, sociological and philosophical acuity. It would be laughable if it didn't have such serious real world implications.
OscarMIlde wrote: » All of the people listed are biologically women apart from trans women, who are biological males who feel like they are or want to be women. They are however not women, no matter how much this fact hurts their feelings.