The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

I don't think that transwomen should be allowed to compete in women's sports without strict testosterone level reductions.

What about other categories of woman who have higher than normal levels of testosterone? For example, I've made a few posts about intersexed persons and how the legal system currently forces a binary label upon them. Some of these persons may have testes but be declared a woman. OR since testosterone production is a spectrum and the cells in the body a mosaic, it is theoretically possible for women to produce n% testosterone (whatever that means doesn't matter--it's abstract). So, would you support some kind of threshold where you say, if you produce above n%, you are excluded from women's sports? Or does any person have to take the testosterone reduction hormones?

What about other genetic anomalies that purportedly give unfair advantage to people...whatever those factors are...are you trying to eliminate anything that makes a person have higher performance in lieu of hard work or do you merely, arbitrarily stop at testosterone?

So...do you support eliminating sex all together as a segregator for sport? Then nobody needs to be humiliated by sex-testing and testosterone rules and whatnot.

 

[Metaphor]

I have a question for everybody in the thread who thinks biological males can declare themselves women and become women.

What is a woman?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

XY - female

You are either dumb or an ideologue.

You mean androgen insensitivity syndrome?

Estimated at 20 to 50 per million for complete insensitivity and a similar number where it's partial.

I was saying that Caster Semenya is a male

Well, you are wrong. Caster Semenya is legally classified as a female and identifies as a female. You seem to be making this high jump to a conclusion based on the presence of a Y chromosome in at least some of her cells and a higher than normal testosterone level, but in absence of information about much of her other biology which likely includes female genitalia. You probably should have followed the links I had given earlier regarding a case of an XY woman who gave birth...see post#145:

Herein we report the extraordinary case of a fertile woman with normal ovaries and a predominantly 46,XY ovarian karyotype, who gave birth to a 46,XY female with complete gonadal dysgenesis. The karyotype of this phenotypically normal mother was 46,XY in blood, 80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X in cultured skin fibroblasts, and 93% 46,XY, 6% 45,X, and <1% 46,XX in the ovary. The family pedigree on the mother’s side was notable for the presence of seven individuals over four generations with either sexual ambiguity, infertility, or failure to menstruate, including one individual with documented 45,X/45,XY mixed gonadal dysgenesis. Both the mother and the 46,XY daughter were screened for mutations in a number of genes known to be involved in mammalian testis determination. In all genes screened (see below), the open reading frame was found to be normal. This suggests that a mutation in a novel sex-determination gene or a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism may be responsible for the phenotype in this family.

To clarify, the above is from a science paper and not the person in question, but shows how much more complicated it is to say a person is XY or not, since the presence of XY is a continuum at the cellular level and may be different across different tissue types as in the case above. We don't actually know all this information and various measurements for Caster Semenya because saying someone is XY is a big over-simplification. We probably will never know but we do know from inference that she was examined at birth and some time later due to the Olympic controversy and both times she'd have been found to have female anatomy.

 

[repoman]

Internal testes?

Male.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Internal testes?

Male.

You claimed Caster Semenya is a male. Proof?

 

[Ahab]

I have a question for everybody in the thread who thinks biological males can declare themselves women and become women.

What is a woman?

That is a good question. Different cultures have different roles for women and men. I'm a liberal and support LGBTQ rights. Am very happy over the recent Supreme Court decision.

Stepping away from the political issues. I am bothered by some of the metaphysical positions taken by transgender people. For example, here is a quote from an essay in the NYTimes written by Devin Michelle Bunten:

"That is to say: Stop using “male” and “female” to refer to men and women. In fact, stop using sex-based words to refer to people at all. They’re words for bodies, not for people with hearts and souls and minds."

Seems to me that is a denial that people are bodies. I would strongly disagree. While I do have a heart, I don't have the impression she is using the word "heart' in the same sense I am. I'm pretty sure I don't have a soul in any literal sense. I do have a mind. But I am not a mind. While I am a body.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

"Assigned male at birth" is a factual statement, and is not contingent on that assignment having been correct or arrived at by any particular means.

Wouldn't that imply that eh obstetrician could look at a freshly delivered infant with ten fingers, ten toes, two testicles and a penis... and "assign" that child the sex of female?

Wouldn't that imply that for the 99% of cis-gender people out there, we might be wrong about what our actual gender is, since it's not related to our biology but is just whatever the doctor "assigned" us?

Honestly, I don't have any problem with someone saying that their perception of themselves doesn't match what they see in the mirror. I just find the terminology to be strange and misleading. As if biological sex is just a human fallacy with no relation to reality.

The assignation doesn't refer to biological characteristics. It refers to that little 'm' or 'f' civic classification which is what, historically, we've used to steer people socially down a path of gendered social constructs. When gender identity is taken into account, that 'm' or 'f' may not fit for civic and social matters. That 'm' or 'f' was not specified by the individual it describes (a baby with the obvious lack of ability to do so); it was ascribed to them by whoever filled out the information for the birth certificate.

It isn't as if biological sex is just a fallacy with no relation to reality. It's as if a birth certificate is not a medical document or a meaningful biological profile. Because it isn't. And it's not used as such.

Personally, when people first adopted the 'assigned as..." language, I wasn't that fond of it. But the alternatives tended to be worse, I didn't have more useful suggestions, and of all the concerns and considerations I had, this wasn't a hill I wanted to die on.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Interesting, so you saying there is 1, 0 and something in between, but it is binary. Are we talking like a quantum binary?

Interesting thought. Does the existence of congenital twins mean we can't say humans have one head? Does the existence of polydactyl people mean that humans we can't say that humans have ten fingers and ten toes?

The issue isn't the statement of humans having one head or ten fingers and ten toes. It's when you see a baby born with an extra digit (which, if memory serves, in some cases is a genetically dominant trait), you don't say "Well, it's not actually a human" or "well, it actually has ten fingers and toes". You don't make the mistake of letting generalized characteristics override what is right in front of you.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think that transwomen should be allowed to compete in women's sports without strict testosterone level reductions.

What about other categories of woman who have higher than normal levels of testosterone? For example, I've made a few posts about intersexed persons and how the legal system currently forces a binary label upon them. Some of these persons may have testes but be declared a woman. OR since testosterone production is a spectrum and the cells in the body a mosaic, it is theoretically possible for women to produce n% testosterone (whatever that means doesn't matter--it's abstract). So, would you support some kind of threshold where you say, if you produce above n%, you are excluded from women's sports? Or does any person have to take the testosterone reduction hormones?

What about other genetic anomalies that purportedly give unfair advantage to people...whatever those factors are...are you trying to eliminate anything that makes a person have higher performance in lieu of hard work or do you merely, arbitrarily stop at testosterone?

So...do you support eliminating sex all together as a segregator for sport? Then nobody needs to be humiliated by sex-testing and testosterone rules and whatnot.

I would.

There's more than one way to sort athletes into competitive categories. Certain sports sort them based on non-sex and non-gender characteristics like age or size. Why not do that in other sports as well?

Why not have featherweight, lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, and heavyweight classes for sprinters, marathon runners, swimmers, divers, tennis players, etc.? And why not divide figure skaters, gymnasts, and the like by age class instead of by sex or gender, so that teenagers can be judged on their energy and jumping ability while the older athletes show off their precision and polished routines?

As long as the divisions are internally competitive, what's the issue?

 

[Metaphor]

So...do you support eliminating sex all together as a segregator for sport? Then nobody needs to be humiliated by sex-testing and testosterone rules and whatnot.

I would.

There's more than one way to sort athletes into competitive categories. Certain sports sort them based on non-sex and non-gender characteristics like age or size. Why not do that in other sports as well?

Why not have featherweight, lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, and heavyweight classes for sprinters, marathon runners, swimmers, divers, tennis players, etc.? And why not divide figure skaters, gymnasts, and the like by age class instead of by sex or gender, so that teenagers can be judged on their energy and jumping ability while the older athletes show off their precision and polished routines?

As long as the divisions are internally competitive, what's the issue?

Well, I've long said that sport that was not segregated by sex would expose the lie that female athletes perform at the same level, and therefore deserve the same compensation, as male athletes. Indeed, I would have quite the guilty pleasure at seeing Serena Williams lose definitively to any top-200 ranked male tennis player. To hear feminists tell it, they appear to believe she's as good as the men!

If there were segregation on other dimensions, there still needs to be an "open" category, however. That will attract the best players, and they'll almost all be men.

Let's see Laurel Hubbard and Hannah Mouncey and Veronica Ivy compete against the best: men.

 

[ruby sparks]

But in this Brave New World of you are whatever you say you are, I could simply rock up to a salon that doesn't want to service me (being a man), claim I'm a trans woman and they would have to service me.

I’m not sure where you get that conclusion from?

The outcome of this case seemed to be that, barring some specific acceptable reason to allow the contrary, if it was your genitals, a waxer offering a women-only service might reasonably be able to refuse, but if it was only your arms and legs, they might not, whether you were a trans woman or a cis man.

Do you think it's reasonable that salons should be forced to wax the arms and legs of men if they don't want to?

First things first. I effectively asked you where you got your prior conclusion from (the one in your original post quoted by me above), hence my question mark. Where did you? I'll be happy to answer your subsequent, related questions, about what I personally think about this or that, after you've answered the specific one I put to you beforehand. The material you cited (ie the outcome of the particular case being discussed) did not seem to lead to the conclusions you were making, as far as I (and some others) could see. That's the point that I was exploring.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think it's reasonable that salons should be forced to wax the arms and legs of men if they don't want to?

First things first. I effectively asked you where you got your prior conclusion from (the one in your original post quoted by me above), hence my question mark. Where did you? I'll be happy to answer your subsequent, related questions, about what I personally think about this or that, after you've answered the specific one I put to you beforehand. The material you cited (ie the outcome of the particular case being discussed) did not seem to lead to the conclusions you were making, as far as I (and some others) could see. That's the point that I was exploring.

There was no comment from the judge on the Sikh woman's policy of excluding men. That the Sikh woman excluded men from her business is not in contention, I take it. My conclusion from the judge's silence is that the policy of excluding men did not need to be commented on--that it was okay. But perhaps the judge ignored it for irrelevancy - which is also telling.

Here's what I believe: the judge believes it is permissible to discriminate against males, except males who are trans-identified (trans women).

Now, perhaps if the case was about the difference between waxing a cis-man's arm and a cis-woman's arm, and a salon was sex-exclusive, the case would turn on whether it is materially different to wax a man's arm versus a woman's arm in order to be able to discriminate.

But I think it's idiotic madness to have to satisfy a tribunal that there are waxing-related reasons to treat men and women differently. Sometimes, people just want to serve a particular sex and that's that. That's a good enough reason for me. If you are afraid men will rape you if you have them as clients, then that's a good enough reason not to have them. If you don't want trans women as clients, then that's a good enough reason to not have them.

There are men's only sex on premises venues in Australia. They exclude women. They should not have to justify their exclusion. They exclude women because they want to exclude women because the club is for men who want to have sex with men.

There are bakers who don't want to cater to gay weddings. For fuck's sake, let them not cater to them. Why the fuck do you want to give your business to someone who doesn't believe in your union? It's so fucking absurd. If I ever manage to snag a man, I can bet you there will be dozens of rainbow businesses chasing my pink dollar.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so, speculation, hypotheticals and mind-reading aside, based on and regarding the facts of the case being discussed, you had no strong reason to ‘go off on one’ or conclude what you did.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There was no comment from the judge on the Sikh woman's policy of excluding men. That the Sikh woman excluded men from her business is not in contention, I take it. My conclusion from the judge's silence is that the policy of excluding men did not need to be commented on--that it was okay. But perhaps the judge ignored it for irrelevancy - which is also telling.

This comment reflects a significant misunderstanding of how the tribunal functions. I mean, you can be forgiven for saying 'judge' to some extent, but these bizarre implications you're reading into the situation have no basis in reality.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do you think it's reasonable that salons should be forced to wax the arms and legs of men if they don't want to?

So now I can answer your question. I suspect you may not especially like the answer but here it is.

It is too general a question to have a simple, blanket answer, imo, and I’m not even talking about legalities, which are probably infernally complicated.

At first blush, I might say no. In principle, I don’t think they should. But my guess is that it would depend on a number of things, some of which would likely include the relevant facts and factors in any one instance.

 

[Metaphor]

Ok so, speculation, hypotheticals and mind-reading aside, based on and regarding the facts of the case being discussed, you had no strong reason to ‘go off on one’ or conclude what you did.

Good god. There was no mind reading. The Sikh woman made it clear that she did not serve male-bodied people, which includes cis-males and trans women. Do you think it is unreasonable to conclude that she did not serve men, when she openly admitted to such?

The judge made it clear that refusing a trans woman while serving cis women, for an activity like arm waxing, was not permitted. Yaniv's action failed, however, because Yaniv engaged in bad faith.

All I asked was whether it's okay to reject men from your services, and, if sex-discrimination is permitted, why isn't 'gender' discrimination?

 

[Metaphor]

There was no comment from the judge on the Sikh woman's policy of excluding men. That the Sikh woman excluded men from her business is not in contention, I take it. My conclusion from the judge's silence is that the policy of excluding men did not need to be commented on--that it was okay. But perhaps the judge ignored it for irrelevancy - which is also telling.

This comment reflects a significant misunderstanding of how the tribunal functions. I mean, you can be forgiven for saying 'judge' to some extent, but these bizarre implications you're reading into the situation have no basis in reality.

These are not bizarre implications. They are facts drawn from the decision. The Sikh woman did not service men and she openly said so. The judge said that whether it was permissible to provide services for cis women but to deny them to trans women depended on the difference that that would entail, and that arm waxing was not sufficiently different between cis women and trans women and discrimination would not be justified. These are not bizarre implications. They are recorded facts.

And, that made me wonder. Why is gender so important to not discriminate against, but--seemingly--sex is okay to discriminate against?

I've made my views clear. I don't impose myself on people who do not want to service me, and I sure as hell don't want the State to force people to service me.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think it's reasonable that salons should be forced to wax the arms and legs of men if they don't want to?

So now I can answer your question. I suspect you may not especially like the answer but here it is.

It is too general a question to have a simple, blanket answer, imo, and I’m not even talking about legalities, which are probably infernally complicated.

At first blush, I might say no. In principle, I don’t think they should. But my guess is that it would depend on a number of things, some of which would likely include the relevant facts and factors in any one instance.

So, you appear to lean towards saying "no, salons should not be forced to service men for arm waxing if they don't want to".

Should salons be forced to service trans women for arm waxing?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

These are not bizarre implications. They are facts drawn from the decision. The Sikh woman did not service men and she openly said so. The judge said that whether it was permissible to provide services for cis women but to deny them to trans women depended on the difference that that would entail, and that arm waxing was not sufficiently different between cis women and trans women and discrimination would not be justified. These are not bizarre implications. They are recorded facts.

That isn't what I am talking about.

My conclusion from the judge's silence is that the policy of excluding men did not need to be commented on--that it was okay. But perhaps the judge ignored it for irrelevancy - which is also telling.

Here's what I believe: the judge believes it is permissible to discriminate against males, except males who are trans-identified (trans women).

These things are not implied and it is wholly unreasonable to interpret that portion of the decision that way in consideration of the tribunal member's responsibilities and how the tribunal operates. You have zero factual, logical or rational basis for associating that belief with her.

And, that made me wonder. Why is gender so important to not discriminate against, but--seemingly--sex is okay to discriminate against?

Both forms of discrimination are prohibited in BC.

 

[Metaphor]

These things are not implied and it is wholly unreasonable to interpret that portion of the decision that way in consideration of the tribunal member's responsibilities and how the tribunal operates. You have zero factual, logical or rational basis for associating that belief with her.

The tribunal member knew the Sikh defendant had a policy of not serving men. The tribunal member said that the difference between trans-woman arm waxing and cis-woman arm waxing was not sufficient to provide a service to one but not the other. Now, the tribunal member did not mention the Sikh woman's discrimination by sex again.

Now, it doesn't really matter why it wasn't mentioned again. Irrelevant to the case probably, as it wasn't a man, in the tribunal's eyes, complaining about the policy. But if the tribunal finds no material difference in waxing cis women's arms versus a trans woman's arms, I wonder why it would not also say there isn't a material difference between men's arms and women's arms.

Ultimately, it's true that the tribunal member did not decide on that, and that the tribunal may have indeed come to the conclusion that waxing a man's arm is not sufficiently different to waxing a woman's, and that any waxer would be violating a man's human rights by not servicing him in this regard.

But I can't speak to that tribunal member. I'm interested in the opinions of people on the message board, which is why I ask questions.

Both forms of discrimination are prohibited in BC.

So every single business in BC that waxes women's arms but not men's are violating human rights, as far as BC is concerned? And these businesses aren't routinely shut down? Why not? I think if a business is violating human rights it should be shut down, whether there's a complainant or not.