• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

Politesse said:
Towards her eventual exile from public gyms and bathrooms under the guise of "protecting women" from lesbian advances, you mean?
Click to expand...
No. That’s not a thing.

She’s glad the Supreme Court ruled that lesbians have freedom of association, and can lawfully exclude men who insist they’re lesbians from their spaces.
 
laughing dog said:
Bomb#20 said:
Politesse said:
Bomb#20 said:
There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.
Click to expand...
There's nothing like dismissing any and all arguments made by actual scientists, to make it plain that you are hawking pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
:picardfacepalm:
You are fractally wrong.

1. What I dismissed contained no arguments, just an ideological slogan. How many times does it need to be pointed out that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition? "Biological sex is a label assigned by a medical professional at birth based on physical characteristics (genitalia) and other biological determinants." does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify. And as ideological slogans go, it is more imbecilic than average, for reasons I pointed out.
Click to expand...
Your example of dinosaurs sets the gold standard for imbecilic arguments. Until you can provide actual scientific evidence that dinosaurs actually thought in terms of different sexes, you are simply spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...
:consternation2: Why the bejesus would dinosaurs need to think in terms of different sexes in order to have biological sexes? Good lord, man, jellyfish have biological sexes, and they don't think at all, lacking central nervous systems. You appear to be making the same sort of map-territory mistake the ASRM made.

Bomb#20 said:
2. What I dismissed was not promulgated by actual scientists. As you said, the source is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. They're doctors, not scientists.
Click to expand...
This is desperate pedantry. Doctors apply science.
Click to expand...
And?

I'm an engineer. Engineers apply science. You think Politesse is going to call my posts "arguments made by actual scientists"?

laughing dog said:
WAB said:
laughing dog said:
Your example of dinosaurs sets the gold standard for imbecilic arguments. Until you can provide actual scientific evidence that dinosaurs actually thought in terms of different sexes, you are simply spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood the analogy. Its not that dinosaurs thought anything at all about sex, only that they had a sex, ie, sex is not assigned at birth, it's present and recognized and recorded, albeit with various levels of complete accuracy (not with respect to dinosaurs, but people).

To me, to "assign" a sex would mean to somehow cause or in someway participate in what that sex is.
Click to expand...
Assign can mean “label”. Hence the pedantic digression about “label makers”.
Click to expand...
The ASRM said biological sex is a "label", hence the pedantic digression about “label makers”, whether or not "assign" can mean "label".

All of which is mind-numbing pedantic pointlessness with regards to the actual discussion about the possible human sexes.
Click to expand...
The pedantic point -- obviously -- was that if Politesse intends to go on parading himself as the voice of "Science"TM with regards to the actual discussion about the possible human sexes, then he really ought to post substantive scientific evidence instead of arguments from authority, especially arguments from authorities who make claims that are transparently inane and demonstrably counterfactual.
 
How do we tell which trees are biologically female, which are male, and which are both?

How is sex defined, uncontroversially, across a vast range of plant and animal species?
 
seanie said:
How is sex defined, uncontroversially, across a vast range of plant and animal species?
Click to expand...
For what purpose does sex need to be defined across ANY range of species?
If one applies such definitions across vast ranges of plants and animals, it’s foolishness to expect a lack of controversy.
 
The purpose is to accurately describe reality.

Where is the controversy in how sex is defined in any mammals apart from humans?
 
Is a female tree any tree that considers themselves female?

Could we please define terms?
 
Gender ideology is by no means the worst ideology.

But it may be the dumbest.

It’s all bait and switch, a refusal to define terms, and obfuscation.

Sex and gender are different?

Fine.

Define those terms.
 
People born male are women when they’ve “fully transitioned”?

Fine.

Define what “fully transitioned” means.

And explain what they’ve transitioned from and to.
 
Bomb#20 said:
The pedantic point -- obviously -- was that if Politesse intends to go on parading himself as the voice of "Science"TM
Click to expand...
I am not the voice of Science, don't talk nonsense. Science needs no spokesman, you're either practicing its methodology or you are not.
 
So…

Say there was someone born male, no exceptionally rare chromosomal differences, raised as male, went through male puberty, married to a woman for 23 years, fathered two children, and then at the age of 54 “transitions” to being a woman?

What makes that person a “woman”?
 
seanie said:
It’s all bait and switch, a refusal to define terms, and obfuscation.
Click to expand...
Like how you keep bring up transgendered persons as a completely transparent ploy to deflect attention away from our critiques of your unscientific ideologies of sex?
 
What do you mean by “transgendered” persons?

And do you think sexing trees is controversial?

Or every mammal apart from humans?
 
I’ve provided a definition of what male and female means that holds true across a vast array of both plants and animals, and is binary.

Provide your definition of male and female that has the same descriptive and explanatory utility.

One that accords with reality.
 
seanie said:
Not at all. The analogy is dreadful.

Firstly, I don’t recall anyone arguing against gay rights claiming that gay people were factually mistaken: that they thought they were same sex attracted but they weren’t.

Has anyone ever said that?
Click to expand...
Surprisingly, yes. It used to be a thing in some extreme fundamentalist circles to insist that men who practiced forbidden sex with other men did it not because they were sexually attracted to other men, but precisely because it was forbidden -- they were supposedly attracted to sin, not to men. It seems to have been a throwback to a medieval mindset, a time before psychiatrists studied the phenomenon and classified it as a mental illness. In the Middle Ages it was popular to view madness as demonic possession and deal with it by punishment and/or deliberately painful exorcism. The rise of medical professionalism in the early modern era caused such practices to die out; this development eventually led the vaguely normal right-wing Christians to start fantasizing about "curing" it instead of punishing it; but of course there's always a lunatic fringe who don't get the memo.
 
I recall homosexuality being regarded as a sin, a transgression, immoral, an offence to nature and god, and public decency.

I don’t recall anyone suggesting it was a simple misunderstanding: people who thought they were same sex attracted were not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom