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

[TomC]

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her

Here's what he posted:

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

I'll bold the important part.
Sex is binary.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

Sex is still binary. True hermaphroditic species don't make sex anything other than binary in anisogamous species. Hell, we only know they're hermaphroditic *because* they have both a male reproductive system and a female reproductive system.

Thank you for explaining things this biologist already knew.

Unfortunately, laughing dog doesn't. That's who Emily was responding to.
Tom

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her.

Is there any point in this discussion where I have NOT referenced the noun sex as representing the two distinct types of reproductive systems that have evolved within anisogamous species? ETA: The only exception I can think of is when I've told YOU not to conflate those meanings, and not to swap out literal meanings with figurative ones, and to at least keep to the same part of speech.

It's not "when it suits her", that's bullshit Toni. I've been extremely consistent about my usage, and I've been very clear about what that usage means. Don't insinuate that I'm somehow being sloppy with my language, it's untrue and it's bad faith.

 

[Bomb#20]

And you'll keep posting that same thing over and over, no matter what anyone replies.

Says the guy who repeatedly turned down my recommendation for a more productive way to frame your debate. Seanie agreed to it. So if he keeps posting that same thing over and over, that's on you. You have no business charging "no matter what anyone replies" because you haven't tried "no matter what anyone replies" yet.

 

[Toni]

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

Sex is still binary. True hermaphroditic species don't make sex anything other than binary in anisogamous species. Hell, we only know they're hermaphroditic *because* they have both a male reproductive system and a female reproductive system.

Thank you for explaining things this biologist already knew.

Unfortunately, laughing dog doesn't. That's who Emily was responding to.
Tom

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her.

Is there any point in this discussion where I have NOT referenced the noun sex as representing the two distinct types of reproductive systems that have evolved within anisogamous species? ETA: The only exception I can think of is when I've told YOU not to conflate those meanings, and not to swap out literal meanings with figurative ones, and to at least keep to the same part of speech.

It's not "when it suits her", that's bullshit Toni. I've been extremely consistent about my usage, and I've been very clear about what that usage means. Don't insinuate that I'm somehow being sloppy with my language, it's untrue and it's bad faith.

Then I will leave you to play with all the voices in your head.

 

[Toni]

And you'll keep posting that same thing over and over, no matter what anyone replies.

Says the guy who repeatedly turned down my recommendation for a more productive way to frame your debate. Seanie agreed to it. So if he keeps posting that same thing over and over, that's on you. You have no business charging "no matter what anyone replies" because you haven't tried "no matter what anyone replies" yet.

I’m sorry? How is the content of one poster’s posts the responsibility of any other poster?

People are responsible for their own words and feelings.

 

[Toni]

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her

Here's what he posted:

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

I'll bold the important part.
Sex is binary.
Tom

The categories male and female do not fully describe the sex of humans and some other species. Male and female do describe gametes. About half of one percent of all humans do not biologically conform to the ‘ideal’ of binary male or female.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her

Here's what he posted:

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

I'll bold the important part.
Sex is binary.
Tom

Your cult can believe whatever it wishes if it helps you deal with reality in a manner that is mostly constructive.

 

[TomC]

The categories male and female do not fully describe the sex of humans and some other species. Male and female do describe gametes. About half of one percent of all humans do not biologically conform to the ‘ideal’ of binary male or female.

Yes, the categories of male and female do fully describe the sex of humans.

A tiny handful of people are born with a congenital abnormality and the two categories get mixed. But those people are not a different sex. There's no third sex.

People with that problem are still fully human and as such need special consideration. Just like people born with dwarfism or spina bifida. But male and female are a binary, like even and odd integers.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

Sex is still binary. True hermaphroditic species don't make sex anything other than binary in anisogamous species. Hell, we only know they're hermaphroditic *because* they have both a male reproductive system and a female reproductive system.

Thank you for explaining things this biologist already knew.

Unfortunately, laughing dog doesn't. That's who Emily was responding to.
Tom

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her.

Is there any point in this discussion where I have NOT referenced the noun sex as representing the two distinct types of reproductive systems that have evolved within anisogamous species? ETA: The only exception I can think of is when I've told YOU not to conflate those meanings, and not to swap out literal meanings with figurative ones, and to at least keep to the same part of speech.

It's not "when it suits her", that's bullshit Toni. I've been extremely consistent about my usage, and I've been very clear about what that usage means. Don't insinuate that I'm somehow being sloppy with my language, it's untrue and it's bad faith.

Then I will leave you to play with all the voices in your head.

That's a shitty thing to say, Toni. You made a false assertion about me, and I corrected you.

 

[TomC]

Your cult can believe whatever it wishes if it helps you deal with reality in a manner that is mostly constructive.

What do you think my "cult" believes?

Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Your cult can believe whatever it wishes if it helps you deal with reality in a manner that is mostly constructive.

What do you think my "cult" believes?

Tom

That sex is binary. Duh.

 

[TomC]

That's a shitty thing to say, Toni. You made a false assertion about me, and I corrected you.

I don't understand why @Toni is so shitty to you.
Your positions on this look nearly identical to me, in all practical ways.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her

Here's what he posted:

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

I'll bold the important part.
Sex is binary.
Tom

The categories male and female do not fully describe the sex of humans and some other species. Male and female do describe gametes.

Male and female do not describe gametes. Male and female describe the reproductive systems that have evolved to support those gametes. The gametes themselves are testes and ovaries.

About half of one percent of all humans do not biologically conform to the ‘ideal’ of binary male or female.

"Ideal" has fuck-all to do with it. There exists NO OTHER sex among humans.

Look, you just said you're a biologist, and chided me for providing accurate information. So, as a biologist... what other sex exists among humans? What evolutionary role does that other sex fill? How does their reproductive system function?

Look... humans have two eyes, which contain rod and cone light receptors, and which use muscles to contract and relax a lens which allows focus at different distances. That's a true statement, from a biological standpoint, wouldn't you say? Now, we all know that some people have genetic mutations or errors that cause them to be born completely without eyes. It's rare, and it's a disorder, but it happens.

As a biologist, do you think it would be reasonable and appropriate to assert that "humans have two eyes" doesn't fully describe the number of eyes of humans as a species? Do you think it would be reasonable and appropriate as a biologist, to assert that humans are a species that has a spectrum of eye numbers?

I mean, holy cow. You're essentially taking a hard-line stance to say that as a biologist it's wrong to describe humans as a bipedal species, because sometimes a person is born without a left leg. At this rate, you're gonna make it impossible to accurately describe any species at all in any way, and you'll just tear down the entirety of cladistics and phylogenetics.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her

Here's what he posted:

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

I'll bold the important part.
Sex is binary.
Tom

Your cult can believe whatever it wishes if it helps you deal with reality in a manner that is mostly constructive.

Why do you think it's cultish to observe that all anisogamous species have two distinct sexes, and that no third sex exists, nor does an in-between sex exist? That both sexes can occur within the same individual doesn't alter that observation.

Let me step back a little bit: Why are you invested in the belief that sex is NOT binary in humans?

 

[Emily Lake]

That's a shitty thing to say, Toni. You made a false assertion about me, and I corrected you.

I don't understand why @Toni is so shitty to you.
Your positions on this look nearly identical to me, in all practical ways.
Tom

I dunno. Perhaps I just rubbed her the wrong way. Perhaps it's because there's a significant amount of social pressure placed on women to "be kind" and to serve in a conciliatory and collaborative role, and that pressure doesn't come only from men. Women can be extremely harsh to women who don't exhibit the behaviors we've been conditioned to express. If you ever doubt this, take a look at how women treat other women who choose work over staying home with a sick kid, even if dad stays home. It's a crazy amount of social pressure.

I rather defiantly and unapologetically refuse to take on the mantle of self-less peacemaker and salver of feelings. And I'm well past the point where I feel like I have to "be nice" in the face of nastiness. That has repercussions. Like, I've noticed over the course of many years that I can be in a discussion on a contentious topic, and express opinion A. I can be civil and respectful, I can present my argument rationally and logically. There can be a male poster expressing the same opinion, and he can do so with less civility and rationality than me. But pretty regularly, that male's opinion of A will face less opprobrium than I do. Now, it's possible that this is just a me thing, and I come across as much less civil than I think I do - that's certainly possible. But I've observed the same dynamic with other women over and over again.

Hell, it's happened to Toni in this thread, on those occassions where she has spoken up in defence of single-sex spaces. She's had to go back and repeatedly insist that she want's everyone to be safe and happy, and she wants males who identify as women to be safe and happy too, before the heat backs off. She has to go out of her way to assuage the risk of hurting the feelings of males in order to avoid hostility.

Me... I don't actually give a fuck about hostility from internet people that I don't have a real life connection with I don't seek hostility, but it also doesn't actually do any harm to me.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m pretty certain laughing dog has nothing to learn from Emily about reproduction, which is the narrow use of the word sex as reproduction—when it suits her

Here's what he posted:

Since trees can male, female or both, the sex is not binary. Clearly you have been kicked in the head multiple times.

I'll bold the important part.
Sex is binary.
Tom

Your cult can believe whatever it wishes if it helps you deal with reality in a manner that is mostly constructive.

Why do you think it's cultish to observe that all anisogamous species have two distinct sexes, and that no third sex exists, nor does an in-between sex exist? That both sexes can occur within the same individual doesn't alter that observation.

Observation is different than insistence.

All integers are composed by adding or subtracting one. Calling them only even or odd doesn’t alter that observation.

Let me step back a little bit: Why are you invested in the belief that sex is NOT binary in humans?

Facts are facts. But I’m not that invested either way. But the mantra that sex is binary is bring used to defend policy that will be hurtful.

This is a complicated issue and reducing it to simple terms will not lead to a fair and reasonable outcome.

Why are you invested in the belief sex is binary?

 

[Politesse]

The difference between 16 and 27 is fairly significant. If your views didn't evolve in that span, I think it would be quite unusual.

At 27, I was in a straight marriage and thought postmodernism was nifty.

Are you divorced? Do you now reject postmodernism?

Not needling, actually curious.

Yes, and no. But I do take a much more measured view of post-modernism, more specific to those authors I do or do not find convincing, and on what subjects. The natural result of reading much more of their work.

 

[Toni]

The categories male and female do not fully describe the sex of humans and some other species. Male and female do describe gametes. About half of one percent of all humans do not biologically conform to the ‘ideal’ of binary male or female.

Yes, the categories of male and female do fully describe the sex of humans.

A tiny handful of people are born with a congenital abnormality and the two categories get mixed. But those people are not a different sex. There's no third sex.

People with that problem are still fully human and as such need special consideration. Just like people born with dwarfism or spina bifida. But male and female are a binary, like even and odd integers.
Tom

What is zero?

Do not small numbers of individuals count as humans?

Do you see intersex individuals as disabled? Fully human? What about individuals with spina bifida or dwarfism?

 

[TomC]

What is zero?

In this context?
Humans who have not yet been conceived yet, I suppose.

Do not small numbers of individuals count as humans?

Yes, which is why I posted;

People with that problem are still fully human

Do you see intersex individuals as disabled? Fully human? What about individuals with spina bifida or dwarfism?

Yes, which is why I posted:

and as such need special consideration. Just like people born with dwarfism or spina bifida.

Do you even read my posts before deciding I am wrong?
Tom

 

[Toni]

What is zero?

In this context?
Humans who have not yet been conceived yet, I suppose.

Do not small numbers of individuals count as humans?

Yes, which is why I posted;

People with that problem are still fully human

Do you see intersex individuals as disabled? Fully human? What about individuals with spina bifida or dwarfism?

Yes, which is why I posted:

and as such need special consideration. Just like people born with dwarfism or spina bifida.

Do you even read my posts before deciding I am wrong?
Tom

I asked questions because I read your post.

In the context of integers, what is 0?

I want to clarify: Do you see intersex individuals as disabled?

Do you see individuals with dwarfism as disabled?

A side bar: I think a major difference between people in this discussion is that some view the world as a set of dichotomies and some view the world as a continuum, not either or but maybe both or neither or something else altogether. Or another way of describing it is that some people view the world as black or white. Others see an entire rainbow. Just an observation.