UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

[Jarhyn]

No. They are separated by sex and age.

It's interesting that you think you know so much about the American prison system, while not living here nor ever having any involvement with the American legal system.

Some folks go to work camps.

Some folks go to Ryker's.

American prisons are separated by the violence of the offense, in addition to other factors.

I object to putting men in with women and pretending that's not what you are doing.

I will disagree. My belief, as supported by the evidence, is that your objections to being told that calling someone something they say they don't want to be called is unnecessarily rude is your deeper concern.

[They] might be lying

They might be. But it doesn't matter if they are lying, assuming we operate as such:

This one has a lot of testosterone affect and killed some folks, so I would think it be prudent to house her with folks who have a lot of testosterone in their history and possibly only those so violent in their dispositions of the moment as to kill folks, regardless of what fuzzy labels folks attach to each other or themselves

 

[Metaphor]

It's interesting that you think you know so much about the American prison system, while not living here nor ever having any involvement with the American legal system.

It's interesting you are such a US chauvinist that you think the default frame of reference is the United States.

American prisons, in every state and federally, are segregated by sex. This is the case in every country I know of.

American prisons are separated by the violence of the offense, in addition to other factors.

That's patent nonsense.

American prisons are (or were) separated by sex.

My belief, as supported by the evidence, is that your objections to being told that calling someone something they say they don't want to be called is unnecessarily rude is your deeper concern.

I certainly object to being told to call somebody something that I do not agree to call them. You object to this also, as when you said you would not respect the pronouns 'm'lord'.

However, I also object to the State separating prisoners by 'gender identity' but pretending they are separating by sex. I hate pretense. I also do not think that prisoners should be separated by their self-declared personality type ("gender identity").

They might be. But it doesn't matter if they are lying, assuming we operate as such:

I do not agree to your operating template. It is deeply nonsensical.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is quite interesting the lengths folks will go to so they can preserve some shred of power over others through leverage of legal terms so as to unnecessarily call people something they don't want to be called.

You really aren't good at reading the motivations of people you look down on. I doubt if that's an accidental correlation.

The issue here is using the fuzzy cluster concept "woman" rather than the biological fact of "meaningfully impacted by testosterone".

"Meaningfully impacted by testosterone" is every bit as much a fuzzy cluster concept as "woman". The fact that it contains the unscientific term "meaningfully" is a red flag that should have tipped you off about that. Whether we assign people to prisons based on whether they're women or whether they're meaningfully impacted by testosterone, it's going to come down to somebody using his discretionary authority to draw a line.

It seems to me the entire problem is manufactured by people who are adamant against bending towards a compromise that gets them most of what they want (the ability to separate the estate in a particular way).

Oh please. Once you say "compromise", that means you've stopped talking principles and started talking realpolitik. Fine, let's talk realpolitik. You say "compromise that gets them most of what they want" as though there's an iota of political support for the compromise you have in mind. Your proposed solution will satisfy hardly anyone but you. Most of the people who are pushing to not have prisons separated by sex will settle for nothing less than separation according to evidence-free personal affirmation of what gender one feels oneself to be. That ideology will win or it will lose. So your proposal will not get the "them" who want to keep separating by sex most of what "they" want because it will not be adopted.

Sometimes when 40% want X and 40% want Z, the 20% who want the middle policy Y can come in and broker a compromise -- they can cobble together a stable 60% coalition for Y, once either the 40% supporting X or the 40% supporting Z come to realize that they aren't going to ever convince 11% more to support the policy they really want. So sometimes the least popular option winds up chosen. That's what you seem to be pinning your hopes on.

The trouble is, that approach never works when the split is 49% to 49% to 2%. You don't get to be the 2% party in a 49%+2% coalition government and still have one of your guys become prime minister -- all your party gets is a cabinet post, usually a minor one. When the testosterone party tries to form a coalition with the sex party to outvote the gender identification party, the sex party isn't going to see the 51% majority you're offering them as stable enough to be a better option than throwing the dice and trying to persuade another 2% to switch to the sex party. An 11% gain or loss takes a change in thinking; a 2% gain or loss takes a change in weather. So if your 2% testosterone party wants to enter into a coalition with the 49% sex party, you're the party that's going to have to compromise.

 

[Metaphor]

"Meaningfully impacted by testosterone" is every bit as much a fuzzy cluster concept as "woman". The fact that it contains the unscientific term "meaningfully" is a red flag that should have tipped you off about that. Whether we assign people to prisons based on whether they're women or whether they're meaningfully impacted by testosterone, it's going to come down to somebody using his discretionary authority to draw a line.

You'd think Jarhyn would have recognised that, given he had to revise his 'exposed to testosterone' (his previous criteria) criterion to 'meaningfully impacted by testosterone'.

 

[Jarhyn]

American prisons, in every state and federally, are segregated by

As you can see they are not. They are segregated by the fuzzy cluster concepts of "man" and "woman". You keep wishing they would be separated by another fuzzy cluster concept "sex". You want so badly for this to happen, rather than to base it on an invariant question of hormones and their impacts.

Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have no penis does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people.

Enjoy the consequences of that, I guess?

I certainly object to being told to call somebody something that I do not agree to call them

And your objections are noted and filed appropriately in the circular file.

You agree to call others that for no price, freely and without hesitation while knowing no concrete facts about their biology.

You can either offer the courtesy to everyone or let people see your behavior as bigoted.

I do not agree to your operating template. It is deeply nonsensical.

Let me reiterate: Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have nothing you would classify as a penis (despite the fact it's 2-3 inches long for this person, and they could probably actually rape someone with it) does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people with their hands or a broom handle, or possibly raping them "Norsemen" style.

But you don't care about that.

 

[TomC]

As you can see they are not. They are segregated by the fuzzy cluster concepts of "man" and "woman".

Yes they are. They are segregated by both sex and age.

And while they're imperfect, they're a lot less "fuzzy" than "meaningfully impacted by testosterone".
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

As you can see they are not. They are segregated by the fuzzy cluster concepts of "man" and "woman".

Yes they are. They are segregated by both sex and age.

And while they're imperfect, they're a lot less "fuzzy" than "meaningfully impacted by testosterone".
Tom

No, it is not less fuzzy. Let me reiterate:

Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have nothing you would classify as a penis (despite the fact it's 2-3 inches long for this person, and they could probably actually rape someone with it) does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people with their hands or a broom handle, or possibly raping them "Norsemen" style.

 

[Trausti]

As you can see they are not. They are segregated by the fuzzy cluster concepts of "man" and "woman".

Yes they are. They are segregated by both sex and age.

And while they're imperfect, they're a lot less "fuzzy" than "meaningfully impacted by testosterone".
Tom

No, it is not less fuzzy. Let me reiterate:

Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have nothing you would classify as a penis (despite the fact it's 2-3 inches long for this person, and they could probably actually rape someone with it) does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people with their hands or a broom handle, or possibly raping them "Norsemen" style.

Some people can’t walk. Ergo, humans aren’t bipedal.

 

[Bomb#20]

It says to all of society an implication that they are a liar and a fake of some manner, besmirching the validity of what they say about themselves and how they comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation.

It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn.

It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when you do "minor" things that are nonetheless <expletive deleted> to others blithely, we call that "petty cruelty" and we all of sensible mind hold a special hateful place in our hearts for those who act that way.

And when your neighbor says there are twenty gods or no god, it says to all of society an implication that you who say the One True God revealed Himself to you are a liar or a fake, or a delusional madman, besmirching the validity of what you say about yourself and how you comport without offering any surface with which to reject that snide, implied accusation. It is a social attack, and one that accepts the return of social rejection in turn. It may seem minor, and perhaps it IS "minor" in a grander scheme, but when when your neighbor does "minor" things that you and his other neighbors perceive as nasty to their in-group blithely, you call that "petty cruelty" and you all consider yourselves of sensible mind when you hate him for it.

So now that we've established that atheists are petty cruel people who deserve to be socially rejected by Christians and Christians are of sensible mind for doing it, that means we've established that some of us don't actually give a rat's ass about the "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." test. Such people should refrain from invoking it.

Yes, because reality itself shows them a liar.

Do tell. By all means, exhibit the observation that shows there's no God who reveals Himself to some people.

But there's nothing to "lie about" when you are saying "I am a woman" because "woman" is not clearly definable.

Do tell. By all means, exhibit the definitions of "God" and "reveal" that are so much clearer than any definition of "woman".

Unlike such things as "has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor", and "has x level of testosterone", which are measurable aspects of a system, "woman" is what is known as a "cluster concept".

You're using "cluster concept" loosely. "Woman" is a concept with an ostensive definition, which is a little different from a cluster concept. And using the term loosely, "has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor" is exactly as much a cluster concept as "woman" is.

Androgen receptors have a number of functions. They're proteins made up of about a thousand amino acids. The proteins can vary at any of those locations. There are about four hundred variants in the medical literature; each one causes its own unique modification to the normal functionality of the receptor. To summarize all that complexity with a single number x -- "has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor" -- is an exercise in deciding what part of that complexity to pay attention to and what part of it to ignore. When variant A changes the receptor's activity this way and variant B changes it that way, and doctors label that difference "B expresses the gene less than A", they are guided in that labeling choice by the circumstance that an XY-karyotype patient with variant A seems less woman-like to them than an XY-karyotype patient with variant B. Any attempt to give a precise definition to "has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor" is either going to piggyback on criteria involved in the "woman" cluster concept, or else is going to get rejected by the medical community on account of giving answers that seem wrong to them.

The comorbidity of concepts within that cluster appear to a wide array of very vocal assholes who mistake the near-complete intersection of them to actually form a "well defined concept"... but it does not.

Your interminable resort to ad hominem arguments against people who disagree with you does not make your preferred concept any more well-defined than theirs.

Now, I can always politely ask the crazies to show me some evidence that the one true God revealed themselves to the crazy person. Usually, they just stand there looking dumb.

Whereas if somebody politely asks a trans person who requests him to express belief that the above's claim is correct to show her some evidence that t.a. is respectively a man or a woman, and t.a. just stands there looking dumb, then usually some self-appointed ally claiming to speak for the trans population will launch into a string of ad hominems against the person who asked a polite question before agreeing to give lip service to someone else's unscientific belief.

They besmirch themselves, and how!

It is always well and good to ask for evidence of claims and provenance of logic.

In many cases, atheists who besmirch people as crazy rather than figuring out how to make the crazy besmirch itself ARE in fact being petty, cruel, hateful, and so can go...

You regard politely asking for evidence as causing the believers to besmirch themselves, when it's a belief that the one true God revealed themselves to "the crazy person". I do not believe for a second that you regard politely asking for evidence as causing the believers to besmirch themselves, rather than as the skeptics pettily cruelly and hatefully besmirching themselves just by asking, when it's a belief that the believers are different genders from the ones they present as. You appear to have a double standard. And which standard you apply appears to turn entirely on the circumstance that you are sympathetic to trans people and unsympathetic to the people of an older faith whom you belittle as "the crazies".

They deserve to be socially rejected as much as the folks who <expletive deleted> on the floor with their craziness and failure to show their work and evidence.

And yet you don't curse out and label crazy and advocate social rejection of folks who say "trans women are women", even though they too fail to show their work and evidence. Your display of hostility is selective; and it appears prima facie to be guided by tribal rather than principled criteria.

 

[Metaphor]

As you can see they are not. They are segregated by the fuzzy cluster concepts of "man" and "woman". You keep wishing they would be separated by another fuzzy cluster concept "sex". You want so badly for this to happen, rather than to base it on an invariant question of hormones and their impacts.

Hormones are not an "invariant" and your solution would be fuzzier than the current arrangement and satisfying to even fewer people.

Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have no penis does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people.

And that person belongs with the females, because they are female.

I classify adult human females as women. It isn't controversial, except by those who can't stand reality.

You agree to call others that for no price, freely and without hesitation while knowing no concrete facts about their biology.

You can either offer the courtesy to everyone or let people see your behavior as bigoted.

Repeating your falsehood does not make it not false.

Let me reiterate: Your approach is doomed to fail, because inevitably, there is going to be someone born in some way you classify as "woman" who has been taking testosterone for 20 years getting thrown in with people you classify as "women". The fact that they have nothing you would classify as a penis (despite the fact it's 2-3 inches long for this person, and they could probably actually rape someone with it) does not change the fact that they are 6 feet tall, 230 lbs of solid muscle, and really like raping people with their hands or a broom handle, or possibly raping them "Norsemen" style.

But you don't care about that.

I don't have a problem with putting a woman in a woman's prison, no. If she is a danger to the other inmates then she can go in isolation.

Remember how you decided isolation was a great idea for any man who went into a juvenile female facility? How it was the bees knees?

 

[Jarhyn]

Do tell. By all means, exhibit the observation that shows there's no God who reveals Himself to some people

I don't need to. Such is an inversion of burden of proof. As per the new guy crowing over in the religion forums, show me the god, show me the creator, and then we'll talk. There's even a very specific series of statements, a very specific crazy they could speak, which would actually get me to listen.

"There are zero or more gods" is the only reasonable statement on the matter until it shows itself provably in a way that is not indistinguishable from lies, and this relies on a solid, satisfactory definition of some "god" thing in the first place. Usually, neither of these things materializes.

Maybe some day that happens to everyone's satisfaction on account of that claimant showing the work.

[Jarhyn] decided isolation was a great idea for any man who went into a juvenile female facility[.]

I have taken the liberty to unbeg the statement from that question. I did no such thing. I decided isolation was a great idea for A specific ADULT person who went into a juvenile facility. I would much rather organize facilities of estates by "testosterone affect"; "not".

You clearly display that you only give a shit about people with penises raping people without them and not people who lack them raping people in general.

Despite any claims you seek an egalitarian society, it seems pretty biased what you seek.

By all means, exhibit the definitions of "God"

There are other forums for which you may ask that. I don't really think it belongs here. You should start a thread on it and discover whether I care.

"has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor" is exactly as much a cluster concept as "woman" is.

No, it's a quantitative measurement with a standard, ostensibly one set on the basis of scientific investigation and observation. It's entirely feasible to develop a model and let people argue in front of a court where they belong, but there will be fewer edge cases with which anyone can sabotage or self-sabotage.

There are other things too, like the active possibility of pregnancy.

If you don't understand that, then you should probably go back to school.

Androgen receptors have [a lot of mansplaining apparently.]

So, it's cute that you understand some biology. I don't give a shit about what people judge as womanly or manly. I really do give a shit about what hormones someone is on: that those hormones be the hormones they want to be on.

Sometimes that means needing to fix models, or to simplify them.

Clearly, the use of "woman" and "man" are oversimplifications.

The point is that you clearly wish to divide people prejudicially on the basis of what you consider to be "sex". You would then demand everyone across society point and look at "sex".

Today we are at a turning point where some people can finally decide what hormones they will be impacted by growing up, and have social groups which will carry to them any traditions of gender they wish to participate in.

Some people who participate in "testosterone" and "most of the worst shit that any person @Bomb#20 calls a 'man' gets on with doing, thinking it's what 'men' are supposed to do with 'women'" will be someone @Bomb#20 would call a woman.

At the very least, we know that a specific group of people haven't been exposed to steroids. Those people, we treat differently in sports, and in prison. When it comes to the ability to become pregnant versus the ability to make someone pregnant, that is also a consideration.

You would reject a situation with fewer edge/corner cases WRT insensitivity for a system with more edge cases with respect to Thomas, the 6 foot 230lb mountain of muscle who loves to rape everyone they call "women", who happens to be what Bomb would call a "woman".

 

[Metaphor]

You clearly display that you only give a shit about people with penises raping people without them and not people who lack them raping people in general.

That you think this accusation makes sense and is true says a lot about your religious beliefs.

 

[Jarhyn]

You clearly display that you only give a shit about people with penises raping people without them and not people who lack them raping people in general.

That you think this accusation makes sense and is true says a lot about your religious beliefs.

Well, if you care to show me any evidence to the contrary, you can be my guest.

You have displayed cares over "men" being housed with "women" over some ostensible concern.

You refuse to discuss what it is exactly, and the only thing that stands out as important there are risks as concerns rape and violence.

Yet you concern yourself not at all with our friend Thomas, who really likes to rape people.

At the very least my model accounts for both this person and the other well, sorting them in with those laden with testosterone for most of their lives and into the recent history.

It's almost like your concern is not real, and instead just an excuse to shout "man" at someone who are the very least deserves to be called whatever they please of [man,woman,other] and [him,her,them] as the case may be.

 

[Metaphor]

You clearly display that you only give a shit about people with penises raping people without them and not people who lack them raping people in general.

That you think this accusation makes sense and is true says a lot about your religious beliefs.

Well, if you care to show me any evidence to the contrary, you can be my guest.

You have displayed cares over "men" being housed with "women" over some ostensible concern.

Yes. I object to trans cultists supplanting 'sex' and pretending self-declared personality type is a better demarcation.

I also object to your 'separate by past and present testosterone exposure', which is fuzzy and ludicrous, and does not take into account any of the objections that women have to men in their spaces. You think you've found some magic bullet, but nobody - not even your trans cultist allies on this thread - agree with you.

You refuse to discuss what it is exactly, and the only thing that stands out as important there are risks as concerns rape and violence.

It is enough for women to say 'I don't want biological males in my intimate spaces'.

Yet you concern yourself not at all with our friend Thomas, who really likes to rape people.

Are you talking about your fictive trans man?

It beggars belief that you want me to object to putting trans men in with women, when you have no problem whatever putting actual men in with women.

At the very least my model accounts for both this person and the other well, sorting them in with those laden with testosterone for most of their lives and into the recent history.

It's almost like your concern is not real, and instead just an excuse to shout "man" at someone who are the very least deserves to be called whatever they please of [man,woman,other] and [him,her,them] as the case may be.

No, people do not deserve to be called whatever they decide is their self-declared personality type. Nor do they deserve their own neopronouns. I will not acknowledge your 'catself' and I will not use your cat neopronouns.

 

[TomC]

you concern yourself not at all with our friend Thomas, who really likes to rape people.

Are you referring to Lia Thomas, the swimmer?

If so, that's a pretty strong accusation to make. Got anything to back it up?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. I object to trans cultists supplanting 'sex' and pretending self-declared personality type is a better demarcation

A better demarcation than what, for what?

For putting people down and talking about private stuff in public?

Because my position is still as such:

This one has a lot of testosterone affect and killed some folks, so I would think it be prudent to house her with folks who have a lot of testosterone in their history and possibly only those so violent in their dispositions of the moment as to kill folks, regardless of what fuzzy labels folks attach to each other or themselves.

And your demarcations do not achieve that goal without missing on our friend Thomas the Rapist.

you concern yourself not at all with our friend Thomas, who really likes to rape people.

Are you referring to Lia Thomas, the swimmer?

If so, that's a pretty strong accusation to make. Got anything to back it up?
Tom

You would reject a situation with fewer edge/corner cases WRT insensitivity for a system with more edge cases with respect to Thomas, the 6 foot 230lb mountain of muscle who loves to rape everyone they call "women".

Thomas is some hypothetical person, not Lia Thomas. Lia is some things, notably benefiting from a lifetime of steroid use in competitive sport which ought forbid that steroid, but Lia is not "Thomas".

 

[TomC]

Thomas is some hypothetical person, not Lia Thomas. Lia is some things, notably benefiting from a lifetime of steroid use in competitive sport which ought forbid that steroid, but Lia is not "Thomas".

That wasn't at all clear. Quite the contrary.
It looked to me like you were specifically referring to Lia Thomas. Who is in fact a "Thomas".
She's also huge. But using descriptions like "loves to rape everyone they call 'women" can be problematic for you. Because I am also a Thomas.

If you're going to call individuals rapists you'd better be clear about who you're referring to.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. I object to trans cultists supplanting 'sex' and pretending self-declared personality type is a better demarcation

A better demarcation than what, for what?

For putting people down and talking about private stuff in public?

Because my position is still as such:

This one has a lot of testosterone affect and killed some folks, so I would think it be prudent to house her with folks who have a lot of testosterone in their history and possibly only those so violent in their dispositions of the moment as to kill folks, regardless of what fuzzy labels folks attach to each other or themselves.

And your demarcations do not achieve that goal without missing on our friend Thomas the Rapist.

you concern yourself not at all with our friend Thomas, who really likes to rape people.

Are you referring to Lia Thomas, the swimmer?

If so, that's a pretty strong accusation to make. Got anything to back it up?
Tom

You would reject a situation with fewer edge/corner cases WRT insensitivity for a system with more edge cases with respect to Thomas, the 6 foot 230lb mountain of muscle who loves to rape everyone they call "women".

Thomas is some hypothetical person, not Lia Thomas. Lia is some things, notably benefiting from a lifetime of steroid use in competitive sport which ought forbid that steroid, but Lia is not "Thomas".

Your friend "Thomas" rapes everyone she calls "women", yet you don't know what she thinks a woman is. You can't keep everyone separate from each other.

Thomas is some hypothetical person, not Lia Thomas. Lia is some things, notably benefiting from a lifetime of steroid use in competitive sport which ought forbid that steroid, but Lia is not "Thomas".

That wasn't at all clear. Quite the contrary.
It looked to me like you were specifically referring to Lia Thomas. Who is in fact a "Thomas".
She's also huge. But using descriptions like "loves to rape everyone they call 'women" can be problematic for you. Because I am also a Thomas.

If you're going to call individuals rapists you'd better be clear about who you're referring to.
Tom

Don't be coy, Tom. Everyone knows that in year 9 you were known as "Rapist Tom" because you had another Tom in your class who was called Tall Tom to tell you apart.

 

[TomC]

Don't be coy, Tom. Everyone knows that in year 9 you were known as "Rapist Tom" because you had another Tom in your class who was called Tall Tom to tell you apart.

Nah.

I was well over 6 feet at age 14.
I was Tall Tom. The nerd. Voted most likely to die a virgin.

This seriously disappointed my Dad. In the sense that he had visions of basketball scholarships in my future. I was literally 6'3" as a 9th grader. Dad tried desperately to get me interested in b-ball. So did my high school coach. Didn't work.
At all.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Your friend "Thomas" rapes everyone she calls "women", yet you don't know what she thinks a woman is. You can't keep everyone separate from each other.

You can keep everyone separate from rapists and honestly, it doesn't matter what he calls a "woman". It could be exactly everyone you call "women" or it could be "everyone with blue eyes", but for the sake of argument we are imagining for a moment that his preference for victims is described by him as "not been on Testosterone."

And he wouldn't be my friend. I assume he also beats up anyone that doesn't call him "him", or who says his name or pronouns audibly with the implications of air quotes, and then laughs and brags about it. It would be a really shitty thing to put that person in with "women".

I wouldn't. I don't know that I would put them in with people that could make a baby with that, either, but I certainly wouldn't treat them differently from the adult woman who ended up buried underneath a juvenile facility as regards where I would want them put. Rather, I would separate the facilities on the basis of hormonal selections, and then have a minority wing for housed prisoners which can mix genetically with the core population.

That's going to be few, but some. The futility of making such claims without serious intent is more than enough to dissuade those of bad faith. It's opting to chemical, and then likely actual castration, and then still being housed with those still on testosterone for YEARS.