The 'Trans' Issue.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Chinahand said:

So, a supreme court nominee can't do it.  How would you define a woman?

It’s just the US Alt Right trying to ask “clever” questions. Sen Marsha Blackburn is on the head banging trumpian religious right. What do you expect.

What is a “woman” or define “woman” depends entirely on context and framework.

Do you mean biological sex or gender. If gender do you mean assigned at birth or after reassignment. How do you cover XO, XXY, XYY, and a myriad of developmental suppressions, hormonal, endocrinological, environmental, of biological expression.

If the rules of the Swimming Association say a genetically XY person who has been taking oestrogen, and has testosterone suppressed - chemically or by castration, and has a T level below a set level, is a woman for the purposes of competition, then that for that purpose the person is a woman.

You can’t define woman by physical or genetic attributes, solely. There are the exceptions, the “aberrations”.

The statutory definition in IoM is how you’re categorised on your birth certificate. Doctors can, and do, make mistakes, or even deliberate wrong entries.

The SCOTUS nominee may, if confirmed, have to determine a question about gender recognition when she sits.

Her answer is totally correct, in the context of a judicial nominee confirmation hearing. Don’t get trapped by the loons into giving an answer that makes you a hostage to fortune.

Of course the line of questions is designed to allow the US right wing commentators, or, really, propagandists, to make political hay.

Its not a biological question. It can’t be answered by a biologist, sociologist, lawyer, politician, teacher, preacher, without context. There’s no one, correct, broad universal answer. 

 

[Chinahand]

John, I don't disagree with a word you've written ... apart from the fact society is getting itself very tied up in the exceptions that prove [challenge] the rule.

In the great majority of cases it is perfectly legitimate to say a woman has XX chromosomes and the sexual characteristics for the insemination and brooding of a child. This simple definition is not all encompassing and the legal protections of the exceptions and the impact this has on wider society is a legitimate area of social, political and legal debate.

I think that is a far better way of stating the argument and saves a supreme court justice clearly being caught in a Gotcha.  

I'm intrigued, if she had replied on the lines of the above would she have been excoriated ... and by who?

[wrighty]

Whatever the legal professors come up with, I can’t accept that it’s right for a genetic male, who’s had male testosterone levels and gone through puberty as a male, to suddenly self-declare to be a woman and win a gold medal in a woman’s race. Regardless of current hormonal status. 

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Whatever the legal professors come up with, I can’t accept that it’s right for a genetic male, who’s had male testosterone levels and gone through puberty as a male, to suddenly self-declare to be a woman and win a gold medal in a woman’s race. Regardless of current hormonal status. 

Did she self declare?

Or has she gone through psychiatric diagnosis, hormone treatment, surgery, before being recognised by a state authorised gender recognition certificate and then complied with the rules of the governing body of her sport.

Its really not easy.

[John Wright]

22 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

John, I don't disagree with a word you've written ... apart from the fact society is getting itself very tied up in the exceptions that prove [challenge] the rule.

In the great majority of cases it is perfectly legitimate to say a woman has XX chromosomes and the sexual characteristics for the insemination and brooding of a child. This simple definition is not all encompassing and the legal protections of the exceptions and the impact this has on wider society is a legitimate area of social, political and legal debate.

I think that is a far better way of stating the argument and saves a supreme court justice clearly being caught in a Gotcha.  

I'm intrigued, if she had replied on the lines of the above would she have been excoriated ... and by who?

She’s an appeal court judge, she’s in confirmation hearings for SCOTUS. If confirmed she may be there for 30 or 40 years. She’s very sensible not to commit. Discretion, valour, etc.

Again, is woman a genetic/biologically determined term, or a social construct description. Contrast woman/female.

[wrighty]

17 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Did she self declare?

Or has she gone through psychiatric diagnosis, hormone treatment, surgery, before being recognised by a state authorised gender recognition certificate and then complied with the rules of the governing body of her sport.

Its really not easy.

I was talking generally. I know this clip is after the state refused to recognize a trans athlete’s gold medal, but have no idea of the specifics of the individual case. 

[Chinahand]

John, genuinely do you think the difference between a lion and a lioness is socially constructed?

I find it a bit strange that people seem to squirm over terms like man and woman, they really aren't that different than lion and lioness.

Especially as everything is fundamentally socially constructed ... but the great dao does exist no matter the lesser human daos we use to understand it.

[John Wright]

32 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

John, genuinely do you think the difference between a lion and a lioness is socially constructed?

I find it a bit strange that people seem to squirm over terms like man and woman, they really aren't that different than lion and lioness.

Especially as everything is fundamentally socially constructed ... but the great dao does exist no matter the lesser human daos we use to understand it.

That’s an apples and oranges question, as well you know. 

Im not squirming. I’m trying to be inclusive and non pejorative.

Im not sure what consciousness male or female lions, or lions and lionesses, have to deal with the linguistic nuances of male/female, woman/man, boy/girl. Humans do. But they also have the ability to misconstrue, accidentally or deliberately.

I couldn’t care less how someone self identifies. I’m not bothered by the risk of exploitation or predation in gender neutral private spaces. After all, I’ve not, yet, come across gender specific disabled facilities.

Id rather the state remained out of it. It’s up to the governing bodies of sports etc, to write their rules and competitors to comply. Courts only to be involved if the rules are irrational or unfair.

 

[Chinahand]

Wittgenstein: If lions could speak we would not understand them.

😉

[Chinahand]

9 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’m not bothered by the risk of exploitation or predation in gender neutral private spaces.

This, though, is an issue for many women. It is the main concern people like JK Rowling have. Must all spaces be gender neutral and if not are there legitimate issues about defining who is and who is not allowed in a segregated space.

I think this issue is worthy of discussion and debate and find the opprobrium directed at Rowling says more about those attacking her than her opinion. 

[John Wright]

21 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

This, though, is an issue for many women. It is the main concern people like JK Rowling have. Must all spaces be gender neutral and if not are there legitimate issues about defining who is and who is not allowed in a segregated space.

I think this issue is worthy of discussion and debate and find the opprobrium directed at Rowling says more about those attacking her than her opinion. 

Is it an issue for “many women”. Or an extreme vociferous few?

Are disabled women worried about disabled male predation in the gender neutral space of a disabled loo?

Im not saying it isn’t worthy of debate, but the histrionics at both extremes of opinion are not conducive.

[jackwhite]

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

This, though, is an issue for many women. It is the main concern people like JK Rowling have. Must all spaces be gender neutral and if not are there legitimate issues about defining who is and who is not allowed in a segregated space.

I think this issue is worthy of discussion and debate and find the opprobrium directed at Rowling says more about those attacking her than her opinion. 

Rowling is pretty aggressive about the subject herself. 

If she's retorted to in the same manner by people affected or who have opposing views then I have no issue with that.

To me she's using her fame to further this cause. Her choice but personally think her attacks on this are unnecessary.

[Chinahand]

On 3/24/2022 at 10:34 AM, Declan said:

In my life I don’t need to “define who’s a woman” so I think it is best to work on the basis that if someone says they are a woman they are a woman. 
 

Obviously some role holders don’t have that luxury. 

Declan, your last sentence is the issue. What should people do if they don't have that luxury?

This area has become so highly politicised that a progressive feminist lawyer, who's entire craft is parsing language and placing it in a social context, is unable to say what a woman is; even though women's rights are still one of the central areas of societal inequality. My gut reaction to that is - that's nuts.

I genuinely think it would have been better for her to answer somewhere along the lines of this:

21 hours ago, Chinahand said:

In the great majority of cases it is perfectly legitimate to say a woman has XX chromosomes and the sexual characteristics for the insemination and brooding of a child. This simple biologically based definition is not all encompassing and the legal protections of the exceptions and the impact this has on wider society is a legitimate area of social, political and legal debate.

I can genuinely see in the near future a group of conservative politicised men creating crises in women's sports - some muscled hunk is going to hold a press conference, declare "I am apache attack helicopter AND a women" and insist on being admitted to the women's weight lifting team.

The strategy adopted by a lot of the left is simply unable to challenge this - that in my view is crazy and I don't think we should just go, I've the luxury of not being concerned by this.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote this: "The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest ... something other than semantics is usually at stake."

This isn't just a semantic issue, it's got real consequences and the weakness of Ketanji Brown Jackson's response to an obvious right wing gotcha concerns me.

 

[John Wright]

29 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Declan, your last sentence is the issue. What should people do if they don't have that luxury?

This area has become so highly politicised that a progressive feminist lawyer, who's entire craft is parsing language and placing it in a social context, is unable to say what a woman is; even though women's rights are still one of the central areas of societal inequality. My gut reaction to that is - that's nuts.

I genuinely think it would have been better for her to answer somewhere along the lines of this:

I can genuinely see in the near future a group of conservative politicised men creating crises in women's sports - some muscled hunk is going to hold a press conference, declare "I am apache attack helicopter AND a women" and insist on being admitted to the women's weight lifting team.

The strategy adopted by a lot of the left is simply unable to challenge this - that in my view is crazy and I don't think we should just go, I've the luxury of not being concerned by this.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote this: "The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest ... something other than semantics is usually at stake."

This isn't just a semantic issue, it's got real consequences and the weakness of Ketanji Brown Jackson's response to an obvious right wing gotcha concerns me.

 

I just think you’ve completely misunderstood, fallen for the Alt Right rhetoric, and are mischaracterising the reply as weak, rather than strong. I’ve explained why above.  The questioner gave no context. The answer depends wholly on context. She may have to determine the question, in a context, when she sits.

She wasn’t unable. Just unwilling. For good reason.

The politicisation is already here, when the conservative Florida governor purports to overturn ( swimming ) race results disqualifying the winner, upgrading 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and ignoring the rules of the association as to eligibility they’d all signed up to before competing.

 

[Passing Time]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I just think you’ve completely misunderstood, fallen for the Alt Right rhetoric, and are mischaracterising the reply as weak, rather than strong. I’ve explained why above.  The questioner gave no context. The answer depends wholly on context. She may have to determine the question, in a context, when she sits.

She wasn’t unable. Just unwilling. For good reason.

The politicisation is already here, when the conservative Florida governor purports to overturn ( swimming ) race results disqualifying the winner, upgrading 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and ignoring the rules of the association as to eligibility they’d all signed up to before competing.

 

do you think he was wrong disqualifying the winner then John?