Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[laughing dog]

But if I wrote "I get uncomfortable and feel intimidated when I run into a black teenager in an intimate space" as a reason to deny black teenagers into intimate spaces, would that be reasonable and understandable? I don't think so. But it is the same underlying reasoning.

Is there a well established history of black teenages abusing and assaulting white people like you?
Are there widespread parts of the globe where white people like you are legally treated as property and denied basic rights, and cannot go out in public without an attendant black teenager?
Are there parts of the world where you can be publicly beaten, stoned, or executed for the crime of having been attacked by a black teenager?
Is there a well documented history of under-reporting of white people being victimized by black teenagers because the victim gets treated as having caused their own victimization for having "provoked" the black teenager?
Are there religions where if your uncovered hair is seen by a black teenager, you've committed a sin and could be killed for it?
Are one in six white people raped by black teenagers throughout their life?
Are one in three white people sexually assaulted by black teenagers throughout their life?

So you get to question the legitimacy of the fears of others, but yours are sacrosanct?

 

[bilby]

And whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant.

You keep bringing it up passive aggressively, so clearly you think it matters.

It’s an objective fact that trans women are men.

And platypus lay eggs and therefore are not mammals.

Live birth is not part of the DEFINITION for mammals.

Mammal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mammals are characterised by the presence of milk-producing mammary glands for feeding their young, a broad neocortex region of the brain, fur or hair, and three middle ear bones.

OMFG.

You know that the definition of "mammal" is arbitrary and artificial, right?

You know that the definition used to include "viviparous", right?

And you know that the definition was changed, because people wanted to include as "mammals" a small group that fits the (old) definition in every way, except in respect of their reproductive system anatomy, right?

In other words, you are appealing to a definition of "mammal" that was changed in exactly the way that we are asking you to change your definition of "woman".

And you feel that this is somehow a good argument not to make that change.

 

[Toni]

Extremely rare DSD conditions have no relevance at all as to whether obvious biological men should be allowed into to women’s spaces if they “seriously and truthfully” believe they should be.

No. Just because it's rare doesn't mean the law gets to ignore it. If compliance with a law is impossible then it's a bad law. Period. Doesn't matter that it's only a tiny subset of the population.

Your position seems to be that because some very few non-transgender people have medical conditions that affect their sexual development... males with gendery feels should be given right-of-access to female single-sex spaces.

No. I'm saying that because such cases exist the premise that everyone is clearly male or female is invalid. And any argument based on a false premise is likewise invalid.

You're misrepresenting the situation.

Neither I nor seanie nor anyone else has said that everyone is clearly male or female. In this context "clearly" means "easy to discern". In fact, I've explicitly acknowledged that some cases are difficult to tell.

What I have said, however, is that sex is strictly binary in humans. There is only male and female, nothing else.

There is no third sex. For there to be a third sex, there would need to be a third type of gamete and a third type of reproductive system that evolved to produce that gamete.
There is no mixed sex. For there to be a mixed sex, there would need to be a "sperg" and a reproductive system that evolved to produce "spergs"
There is no non-sex. This one is even more fundamental - having a reproductive system is a required step in fetal development. If a reproductive system is entirely absent, the fetus will miscarry. It's as fundamentally necessary as lungs or heart or brain - without it the fetus absolutely dies.

And all of this is a bit irrelevant - the fact that some very few people are difficult to classify without further investigation does NOT justify granting the special privilege of overriding women's boundaries in spaces where we're naked or vulnerable for males who developed an entirely normal male reproductive system. The fact that 0.02% of people have ambiguous genitals at birth does not support the assertion that transgender identified males without ambiguous genitals should be given carte blanche to trample all over women's rights to privacy and consent.

But it is NOT a fact that there is only male and female. There are individuals who are intersex, those whose chromosomes do not fall into the more common XX or XY. There are those who had a single gene on a single chromosome migrate and the resulting individual may have a male body and a female brain or vice versa.

The male/female dichotomy pertains only to reproduction. In humans, sex is much more than reproductive capacity or intent.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I don’t, because social change does not require unanimous approval.

You still don’t get it. Each one of your “specific” questions presumes independence from the other changes.

You still haven't bothered to elaborate on any of them at all.

Frankly, if you don’t grasp the fundamental issue that as a general rule, men and women are different in many ways (otherwise why bother trying to change one’s gender), then discussion is futile. But I think you do get there are differences beyond gametes and body parts.

Males and females are different in many ways, yes. The vast majority of those differences are sex-linked. The differences are driven by the differences in our bodies, and our bodies are a whole lot more different than you seem to acknowledge. Sex is defined by the type of reproductive system we have; that doesn't mean that our reproductive systems are the only differences. But those other differences are not sex. We have a plethora of physical differences, which I very kindly posted up thread... and which everyone seems to have ignored and are pretending they don't exist.

There are also some behavioral tendencies that differ between males and females of the human species. Many of those tendencies are shared with other mammals as well, although they're not universal by any means. Generally speaking, males tend to be more aggressive, have a stronger fight response than flight response, are more prone to respond to conflict situations with anger, and tend to gravitate toward play/hobbies/work that involves physical manipulation of the world around them, and have a higher risk tolerance. Generally speaking, females are less aggressive, have a stronger flight response as well as a much more pronounces freeze response, are more prone to respond to conflict situations with conciliatory actions and tears, tend to gravitate toward play/hobbies/work that involves care-gicing and nurturing, and have a lower risk appetite. But those are correlated tendencies, and they show an extremely wide range of deviation for each sex. Abstractly speaking, they have means that are statistically different, but have extremely large variance around those means. They error bounds on each of those tendencies is wide enough to make those behavioral tendencies non-predictive. You can't be provided a set of behavioral characteristics for a person and predict their sex with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Furthermore, a whole lot of the behavioral differences that humans exhibit are learned behaviors, picked up in early childhood and reinforced throughout our lives. Boys are rewarded for being rambunctious, curious, having opinions, speaking up, and competing. Girls are rewarded for being docile, quiet, compliant, and meek.

To the extent that we have emotional differences, hormones are a bitch. Some of our emotional differences are culturally instilled (boys don't cry, girls don't yell). But a whole lot of it is testosterone and estrogen. Testosterone is a steroid, and it increases aggression and anger; estrogen increases emotional lability. But again, those aren't proscriptive. An angry and aggressive woman isn't part-male. A sensitive and highly empathetic man who cries a lot isn't part-female. Exogenously altering someone's hormones can change some of their emotional responses to a degree - but it still doesn't make them the opposite sex in any way.

The fact you routinely dismiss the dilemma for the sincere trangender people as “feelings” but use fear (which is a feeling) to justify a unsympathetic social policy suggest to me that it is some trans revulsion that drives these responses.

Meh. I'm tired of being called names, told I'm a bigot, called a nazi, and otherwise demeaned and harassed, so I'm not as dedicated to being super obsequiously polite all the time. My interlocutors seem to have no requirement to be nice, and frankly I'm done with playing the nice girl.

Gender identity is literally a feeling - it's a subjective and unverifiable feeling inside someone's head that does not have any material reality. Sex is an objective reality. And whether you wish to consider it or not, women - female women - are victims of sexual crimes at rates that absolutely eclipse what men experience. And 99% of the time, it's men who commit those crimes against us. Women have extremely well-founded reasons to fear strange males in places where we're naked or vulnerable.

You think it's sympathetic to want to accommodate transgender identified males - and it is sympathetic. But that sympathy toward a subset of men who have gender identity issue is at the expense of women, toward whom many of the posters in this thread have expressed zero sympathy whatsoever. It is not acceptable to me, nor to a great many women, to write policy that grants some men access-by-right to places where women are naked. It creates a situation where women lose the right to say no, the right to enforce our boundaries, the right to not be subjected to voyeurism, the right to not be subjected to exhibitionism. If there were actually some reasonable and practicable way to actually tell which males are "genuine transwoman" and which are not, you might be able to make a good case. But the reality is that there is no way to tell. So when you advocate for and support policies that give transgender identified males access to female sex-specific spaces, you are in effect giving access to any and all men who want to use them. You are removing the right of women to say no, and you're forcing us to be subservient to any man who wishes to be there.

And that demonstrates a profound lack of sympathy toward actual women.

A person walks into a restroom designated for women. One user feels the person doesn’t belong but the person in question behaves appropriately. What response and outcome do you envision? I think no response is the best because nothing will happen.

Suppose the individual acts inappropriately, what response and outcome do you envision?
Depending on the behavior in question, I envision either polite inquiries or a call to the authorities.

Does the person at least somewhat look like they could feasibly be a female human? Or does the person look entirely like a completely normal male?
More to the point: Do you believe that female humans should have no right to deny males the right to be in intimate spaces with us against our will?

If this were 15 years ago, I'd be with you on the polite inquiry vs authorities bit. That's where I started. And if I could be extremely certain that it were limited exclusively and only to bathrooms... I might still be willing to make do. But that's not what has developed, and I'm no longer willing to give ground. What used to work very well no longer works. It used to be understood that women's spaces were for female human beings, that we had the authority to evict men who ventured in if we wished to. And knowing that we had that authority, we were willing to make accommodations, to turn a blind eye, and to be gracious toward periodic and respectful exceptions. That included the occasional situation where a man needed to help his wife/daughter/grandma/etc. in the restroom. It included when a woman brought their son in who was really probably too old and a bit too curious about women's bodies... but we understood that leaving them alone outside might not be a reasonable option. And it also included the occasional transsexual who behaved appropriately.

But over the past decade or so, the boundaries have been pushed so far, and so egregiously, that I don't think we can go back. It would be really nice if we could, but I don't think it's possible.

 

[Emily Lake]

In other words, you are appealing to a definition of "mammal" that was changed in exactly the way that we are asking you to change your definition of "woman".

Not even remotely the same way.

The definition of mammal was changed based on observable and verifiable evidence. You're asking that I accept a new definition of woman that is based on an entirely subjective and unverifiable belief.

 

[Emily Lake]

But it is NOT a fact that there is only male and female. There are individuals who are intersex, those whose chromosomes do not fall into the more common XX or XY. There are those who had a single gene on a single chromosome migrate and the resulting individual may have a male body and a female brain or vice versa.

The male/female dichotomy pertains only to reproduction. In humans, sex is much more than reproductive capacity or intent.

FFS, Toni. Actually READ what I write.

1) Intersex is a misnomer. It implies that individuals are actually for realsies in-between the sexes. They are not.
2) Sex is not defined by chromosomes, it is defined by the type of reproductive system present in that species, and whether it's the system that evolved to support ova or sperm
3) Brains are not part of sex, and there is no fucking "pink brain" or "blue brain". That's utter bullshit and it's regressive as fuck.

Sex is entirely and completely a result of the fact that we evolved to reproduce sexually. Sex is NOT about anything more than reproductive role, and it has NOTHING to do with capacity or intent. It is exclusively about which developmental path your body went down. Humans are NOT exceptional in this, we are just like any other anisogamous species.

I find it deeply offensive and insulting to think that you of all people would fall into this fantasy that you and I have "girl brains" and that having "girl brains" is what makes us female. What makes you and I female is our reproductive system, regardless of whether we actually have kids or not.

Don't let activists lie to you.

 

[ZiprHead]

Who make the rules that the rest of us ( but not you) must follow. Someone acknowledged that a person with a female appearing body would likely not fare well in a men’s locker room. I’m guessing lot of gay guys don’t feel comfortable—with good reason! in a lot of male restrooms or locker rooms/showers.

Rapes by trans people in women's restrooms: zero.

Probably not zero.

Zero. I did a lot of looking for frequency comparisons, always coming up empty. Until I found out none exist because there was nothing to compare.

But what does that have to do with how welcoming and accepting trans people in male restrooms?

For example: How many trans people do you suppose are raped, beaten in men’s restrooms? How many gay people? How many bisexuals? Just not sufficiently masculine appearing men? How many women? How murdered by men?

You're trying to cause more of them.

You have fucking got a lot of damn nerve trying to tell women what we must accept from someone with an XY chromosome.

Lines inherently must be drawn. The data shows no harm from transwomen in the women's room. The data does show harm from the transwomen in the men's room.

Took me under 30 seconds:

Virginia family sues school system for $30 million over student's sexual assault in bathroom

A teenager and her parents have filed a $30 million lawsuit against a Virginia school system after she was sexually assaulted in a women’s restroom by a male student.

apnews.com

The details of the 2021 assault — the attacker was wearing a skirt in a women’s bathroom — made it a flashpoint in the national debate over allowing transgender students to use bathrooms, play sports and go by names and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity.

Still, the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker’s gender identity, according to documents filed with the family’s lawsuit. Teachers say he preferred and requested male pronouns, according to a report by a law firm that investigated the assault.

The sexual assault in May was one of two committed by the same student in the school system. The second occurred at another high school in October 2021. The attacker, who was 15 at the time, has been convicted as a juvenile for both crimes.

The individual who is accused of rape may/may not be transgender--they may be only wearing a skirt to pass as transgender or just because they like it but it seems they are definitely using the rules to access victims in the girl's restroom.

He may have been wearing a kilt and not a skirt. It's not unusual to see men wearing kilts around here. Since he preferred male pronouns I don't think he tried to portray himself as trans. And since he's done it now two times, he may be just a fucked up rapist kid who needs his pee pee whacked. (Cheech and Chong reference.)

 

[laughing dog]

No, I don’t, because social change does not require unanimous approval.

You still don’t get it. Each one of your “specific” questions presumes independence from the other changes.

You still haven't bothered to elaborate on any of them at all…

Because they are pointless, and because there is no point. You’ve made up your mind as the rest of your straw man filled response shows.

 

[Toni]

Who make the rules that the rest of us ( but not you) must follow. Someone acknowledged that a person with a female appearing body would likely not fare well in a men’s locker room. I’m guessing lot of gay guys don’t feel comfortable—with good reason! in a lot of male restrooms or locker rooms/showers.

Rapes by trans people in women's restrooms: zero.

Probably not zero.

Zero. I did a lot of looking for frequency comparisons, always coming up empty. Until I found out none exist because there was nothing to compare.

But what does that have to do with how welcoming and accepting trans people in male restrooms?

For example: How many trans people do you suppose are raped, beaten in men’s restrooms? How many gay people? How many bisexuals? Just not sufficiently masculine appearing men? How many women? How murdered by men?

You're trying to cause more of them.

You have fucking got a lot of damn nerve trying to tell women what we must accept from someone with an XY chromosome.

Lines inherently must be drawn. The data shows no harm from transwomen in the women's room. The data does show harm from the transwomen in the men's room.

Took me under 30 seconds:

Virginia family sues school system for $30 million over student's sexual assault in bathroom

A teenager and her parents have filed a $30 million lawsuit against a Virginia school system after she was sexually assaulted in a women’s restroom by a male student.

apnews.com

The details of the 2021 assault — the attacker was wearing a skirt in a women’s bathroom — made it a flashpoint in the national debate over allowing transgender students to use bathrooms, play sports and go by names and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity.

Still, the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker’s gender identity, according to documents filed with the family’s lawsuit. Teachers say he preferred and requested male pronouns, according to a report by a law firm that investigated the assault.

The sexual assault in May was one of two committed by the same student in the school system. The second occurred at another high school in October 2021. The attacker, who was 15 at the time, has been convicted as a juvenile for both crimes.

The individual who is accused of rape may/may not be transgender--they may be only wearing a skirt to pass as transgender or just because they like it but it seems they are definitely using the rules to access victims in the girl's restroom.

He may have been wearing a kilt and not a skirt. It's not unusual to see men wearing kilts around here. Since he preferred male pronouns I don't think he tried to portray himself as trans. And since he's done it now two times, he may be just a fucked up rapist kid who needs his pee pee whacked. (Cheech and Chong reference.)

Apparently he did try to portray himself as trans and wore a skirt to give himself access to a girls restroom.

Is he trans? I have no idea. Pronouns he used are not evidence. But he clearly was using at least a pretext of being trans at two different t schools in order to gain access to victims. Again, a very quick Google search turned this up in multiple cited and I picked the news site I thought most people would recognize.

Do I think this is just an isolated individual with nefarious intentions? Almost certainly. But there is more than one instance where someone who appears make to some extent claims to be trans to gain access to victims.

Do I think this is a reason to curtail trans rights? Absolutely NOT!

But I do think that people owe girls and women enough respect to allow their concerns and fears to be addressed. Including trans.

 

[Bomb#20]

I know a woman who installed curtains in her car windows so she could go out to the parking lot to pee in privacy, because her workplace in its infinite wisdom decided to make the women's restroom "gender neutral".

There were no doors on the stalls?

I can't even.

Why not?

Why did you ask "There were no doors on the stalls?"? Was that a serious question? Do you genuinely think "The stall doors were missing." is a more likely explanation for why a woman would pee in a jar in the parking lot than that it's psychologically less awful for her than having to pee with a man she doesn't know right outside the stall? Or was it a rhetorical question, intended to convey a sentiment to the effect of "Why can't a woman be more like a man?"? Either way, for you to write something that tone-deaf makes me wonder if you even know any women.

 

[Bomb#20]

I mean women as opposed to females. That includes women who used to men but are no longer men. That includes anyone who seriously and truthfully considers themselves a woman. It does not include males pretending to be women for ulterior purposes.

That's a circular definition.

Show you work.

Your explanation for what you mean by "woman" relies on the listener already understanding the word "woman".

My cellphone has a word-game with a built-in dictionary; one of the words that periodically comes up in the game is "shea". When you click on it it pops up the definition: "alternate spelling of shea".

 

[Toni]

I would say coal MINING is much cleaner than fracking.

Dig a hole. Dig out the coal. Put it in a truck and haul it away. Leave an ugly looking hole.

Fracking is drill numerous holes. Pump dangerous toxic chemicals into those holes. Pump out the gas, haul it away. Leave the dangerous chemicals to contaminate the ground and water for decades.

Coal: Leave the stuff you dug out all over the place, turning the area into pretty much wasteland.

But not a toxic wasteland.

A toxic wasteland.

So does fracking and so does mining for silica sand for fracking.

I’m 100% behind getting rid of coal—it’s environmentally indefensible and in terms of the harm it does to those who mine coal or live with coal miners, it’s also indefensible.

There is much less history behind fracking and related industries but that doesn’t mean they are not very harmful! Can we not learn from coal mining and NOT wait to cause wide spread environmental destruction and huge costs to human health before we say this ain’t no good? .

 

[Toni]

Why exactly is it the male person’s problem and not your?

Misogyny and male entitlement perfectly captured.

A perfectly captured deeply reasoned impaired response.

No, she has a point.

Women have been conditioned for millennia to fear or at least avoid unclothed men/exposed penises except under very strict circumstances.

It is not reasonable to expect women to set all that aside on some men’s say so. It does absolutely reek of entitlement for men to refuse to recognize this, particularly when men are the reason women are afraid.

I asked a specific question of a specific poster. A woman may have good reasons to be intimidated by males in general in an intimate space or not. I did not make a generalization.

But if I wrote "I get uncomfortable and feel intimidated when I run into a black teenager in an intimate space" as a reason to deny black teenagers into intimate spaces, would that be reasonable and understandable? I don't think so. But it is the same underlying reasoning.

No, it’s not.

White men do not have a long, long history of being attacked by black teenagers. They have not been raised to fear sexual assault, they are not blamed if/when they are attacked and their virtue and moral character is not maligned if they have been attacked by a black teenager.

What I see here is men insisting women must put up with intrusions into their privacy.

Not a damn thing about stopping the reasons women have to not want male body was in their intimate spaces.

 

[Bomb#20]

What’s it go to do with being trans though?

Well, you should really ask the people who bring intersex conditions up; I probably won't do their reasons justice. But the arguments for why it's relevant I've seen appear to pretty much amount to one or the other of these.

1) Transphobes say sex is objectively binary. But even one intersexed person proves it isn't binary, so they're wrong, so it's not objective, so it's subjective, so it must be whatever the subject feels it is. Therefore transmen are men and transwomen are women.

This is not remotely doing it justice. This isn't about proving trans, but rather kicking a pillar out from underneath the anti-trans argument. The anti-trans insist that everyone is clearly male or clearly female--but if that were true there would be no intersexed. The existence of the intersexed proves this premise false, and any argument based on a false premise collapses.

That doesn't clarify what if anything it's got to do with being trans though. Which argument are you calling "the anti-trans argument" that you propose to kick a pillar out from under? Who are these people you're calling "The anti-trans"? Labeling dissidents "anti-trans" is a well-poisoning fallacy -- you might as well call everyone who doesn't believe God has a Chosen People "anti-Jew". "The anti-trans insist that everyone is clearly male or clearly female" is a sweeping generalization -- plenty of people whom trans-activists would no doubt label "anti-trans" do not insist any such thing. And the fact that some opponent made a weak argument doesn't show your opponents in general are wrong. For intersex conditions to have something to do with being trans, there would have to be some fact in dispute about being trans that turns on whether somebody somewhere has, for example, a fully functional left testicle and right ovary. I'm having trouble imagining what fact that might be.

2) Intersex conditions are real -- some people have anatomy normally found in the other sex, and that makes them partly male and partly female. People with gender dysphoria are the way they are because of anomalous brain anatomy. A transman feels he's male for the same reason a cisman feels he's male -- because they both have male brains. Therefore transgenderism is a bona fide intersex condition -- when a person is intersexed going by brain anatomy but not going by reproductive anatomy, well, don't we all care more about our brains than our genitals? Arguing a transman is in fact a woman is therefore wrong for the same reason arguing a person with intersexed reproductive anatomy is in fact a woman -- because intersexed people are really in fact neither men nor women, but something in between, hence the name "inter"sexed.

Once again, it's not a proof, but rather knocking down an argument. The intersexed show that it's possible for the body to not fully apply the male pattern to the embryo. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to figure that there might be cases of the mental aspects not being fully applied, also. This doesn't prove they exist, it simply says that it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

So once again, which argument are you talking about knocking down? I don't think anyone here but maybe Tigers! believes in gendered souls. Of course people who think they're the other sex think it because something in the development of their brains didn't bring about the usual perception that they are the sex the rest of us observe them to be -- all thoughts are the result of brain wiring.

Furthermore, we have seen how badly it tends to go when doctors try to resolve intersex conditions in infants. Surgically "correcting" the condition and raising them as that gender has a very high rate of gender dysphoria. That makes it quite clear that there is something mental that's separate from the anatomy.

You mean the reproductive anatomy, I take it. Brain wiring is anatomy.

Thus it is unquestionable that there can be a gender to the mind.

No, it is unquestionable that there can be a gender identity to the mind. Gender and gender identity are not the same concept. An awful lot of trans ideology's arguments rely on equivocating them.

It says nothing about how that should actually be handled in society.

For how to handle it, observe what happens. The suicide rate amongst those allowed to live as their preferred gender is lower than amongst those who aren't.

Argumentum ad suicide? Whether a person who thinks he or she is the other sex would benefit from drafting the whole population into his or her care team, and getting them all to help the person self-perceive as the other sex, medicinally, by making an effort to conceal contrary data, has no implications one way or the other as to whether he or she is, in point of fact, the other sex.

 

[bilby]

In other words, you are appealing to a definition of "mammal" that was changed in exactly the way that we are asking you to change your definition of "woman".

Not even remotely the same way.

The definition of mammal was changed based on observable and verifiable evidence. You're asking that I accept a new definition of woman that is based on an entirely subjective and unverifiable belief.

The existence of transsexuals is not "an entirely subjective and unverifiable belief", it is observable and has been verified for centuries.

 

[Politesse]

In other words, you are appealing to a definition of "mammal" that was changed in exactly the way that we are asking you to change your definition of "woman".

Not even remotely the same way.

The definition of mammal was changed based on observable and verifiable evidence. You're asking that I accept a new definition of woman that is based on an entirely subjective and unverifiable belief.

The existence of transsexuals is not "an entirely subjective and unverifiable belief", it is observable and has been verified for centuries.

Millennia. 1/3 of a planet's worth of gender trinary and quaternary societies did not emerge out of thin air four hundred years ago. This has always been the nature of biology and society in human spheres. Christianity and its hangups are the day-lily here, not the social expression of gender and its inherent complications.

 

[seanie]

And you feel that this is somehow a good argument not to make that change.

So some males should be allowed access to female only spaces because…

…duck billed platypuses.

If only you could have been there in the Supreme Court.

You could’ve saved the day.

 

[seanie]

But it is NOT a fact that there is only male and female. There are individuals who are intersex, those whose chromosomes do not fall into the more common XX or XY. There are those who had a single gene on a single chromosome migrate and the resulting individual may have a male body and a female brain or vice versa.

Yes it is. Caps lock is not an argument.

People with DSDs are still male or female. Their developmental pathway being atypical doesn’t alter the fact they’re male or female.

Chromosomes may determine sex, but they do not define it.

And since the subject primarily concerns whether trans women should access women only spaces, and that trans women are without doubt male (and not clownfish), DSDs are irrelevant.

 

[seanie]

The existence of transsexuals is not "an entirely subjective and unverifiable belief", it is observable and has been verified for centuries.

What do you mean by the word “transsexuals”?

What is that describing?

 

[seanie]

Obviously, the existence of people who insist they’re not the sex they are, exist.

Nobody is disputing their existence.

Just that their belief is objectively untrue.