Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

...their chromosomes....

Apologies for the typo.

[Fried Egg]

To sum up my position; most of the time I would go along with people's gender identities but for certain occasions (albeit few and far between) it matters what their natal sex is and it's not hateful to "mis-gender" on those occasions.

Ok, if that is your actual position then we have little to disagree about. I would just add that instead of calling such women "men" in those few situations where chromosomes might matter, we could refer to there chromosomes or the absence of ovaries, etc. That way, no one need get offended.

Well, yes, there are ways of being more tactful, for sure. But ultimately, I don't think people should get offended by references to their actual sex, if it is actually pertinent to the situation. And, by the way, I don't think all trans people would be offended (I've heard interviews from trans people who've said as much).

For example, the gynecologist you mention might have explained to the women in question that he could not treat her for such a reason. But if he'd said to her, no, I can't treat you because you are a man, then I'm not surprised that she was hurt and offended and I think it right that he be disciplined for an appalling lack of tact and his woeful bedside manner.

Well, I've read the articles about the incident in question and no doubt you'll get a different version of events depending on who you ask. Sure, there are ways of being more or less tactful about it, but ultimately it boils down to biological facts of the matter. I wonder whether it is for his conduct or the mere fact that he refused to see the patient that he was suspended?

I have no problem with some female only spaces. However, I also have no problem with post-surgical trans-women using women's bathrooms or being house in women's prisons. Such women are indistinguishable from XY women and no threat to them at all. And they can hardly use male public toilets and they would be at great risk if housed in male prisons. We just need to be a bit flexible and nuanced in our understanding of how people, in all their variation, should be treated.

Yes, that's right. But it is in cases like Isla Bryson, a double rapist who was sent to a female prison without having undergone any re-assignment surgery that causes the controversy and outrage. And I suspect you would agree with me, in that particular case, that he shouldn't have gone to a female prison? And, I have to admit, in such cases I have no problem referring to him as a man (I suspect he was just gaming the system anyway).

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I agree, people like Isla Bryson should not be housed in women's prisons. Sexual predators of all forms might be best kept separate from those on whom they may prey.

[Pattern-chaser]

But to openly and intentionally disregard — and mock! — trans women by refusing to call them anything other than "men" is just ... intolerant, and intentionally offensive/insulting. This is nothing to do with the difference between sex and gender, this is about trampling over others' feelings to nurture your own unwillingness to accept the real-world reality of trans people.

I don't accept it because it's not "real-world reality". It is an illusion. That doesn't mean that I hate trans people (because I don't). You cannot change your sex. And if pointing out that fact causes some people's illusions to be shattered then I'm sorry but the truth is not an insult.

But we have already considered the nature of sex, and how it is determined, and agreed (I thought) that even one's 'biological' sex is not as binary as we thought, when one can, in effect, be both biologically male (i.e. has a penis) and also biologically female (brain configuration). So your view is not "the truth", it is a faith position.

It is probably because most of the extreme trans activists are trans women (i.e. men). We (for obvious reasons) don't see trans-men trying to get into men's sporting categories, into men's toilets or changing rooms. We don't see trans-men attacking gay men for not wanting to couple with them. The outlandish demands are all coming from trans-women.

Is this fact-checked information, or is it ... something less than that? There are some outrageous accusations here.

[Pattern-chaser]

And in those certain situations, it is not being hateful to refer to someone's actual sex rather than their gender identity, which is what Patter Chaser apparently believes. I could never accept such an extreme position.

As we have said already, someone's "actual sex" is not as clear-cut or binary as you state. Brain-sex (as we have called it) and body-sex are not *always* the same thing. They *can* vary, even though it is uncommon.

[Fried Egg]

And in those certain situations, it is not being hateful to refer to someone's actual sex rather than their gender identity, which is what Patter Chaser apparently believes. I could never accept such an extreme position.

As we have said already, someone's "actual sex" is not as clear-cut or binary as you state. Brain-sex (as we have called it) and body-sex are not *always* the same thing. They *can* vary, even though it is uncommon.

To quote myself providing the biological definition of sex:

An individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova.

So the development of the brain is effected by chromosomes and sex hormones, yes. But even if we accept that in some rare cases the brain might have developed along female typical pathways (in contrast to the rest of the body), it has no bearing on the type of gamete their primary reproductive organs are organised to produce. The sexual development of the brain has no more bearing on one's sex than the development of one's hips (i.e. a female might not develop the usual hip widening associated with most female development but that doesn't affect their actual sex).

Ultimately, this comes down to context though. If you're deciding which prison to send double rapist Isla Bryson, I don't care about which sex his brain is, I care about his actual sex.

[Fried Egg]

Let's put it this way; if someone transported my brain into a female body, I would be a woman. I might not feel like I'm a woman as my brain was developed in a male body. But the new body I found myself in contains sexual organs that are organised to produce ova. I would be a female (albeit maybe with a gender identity of a man).

[Good_Egg]

I had never heard of Blair White, but I have known and worked with several women like her who nobody could pick as anything but female without looking at their chromosomes. Their brains, psyches and bodies are as female as any woman with XX chromosomes. But Fried Egg wants to paint a big XY on them as proof that they are not women and insists on referring to them as men.

Thank you for clarifying so well.

I think You have confirmed that you have no problem with the existence of "female spaces" - women's sports, girls' schools, sex-segregated public toilets, etc. Implying that there should be some criteria for who uses which bathroom etc.

The philosophical question is only what those criteria should be.

Which would be a non-issue in a world where everybody's body (chromosomes, brain structure, genitals, body shape) and mind (behaviour, self-perception) were perfectly aligned. But life's not quite like that. In a small minority of people these are not totally aligned. Can we call such people "conflicted" ?

Seems like here, in this forum, we should be able to have a reasoned discussion without it degenerating into accusations of hate or brainwashing.

You seem to be saying -from experience - that there is a subset of the conflicted whose visible signs are all aligned with their self-perception of gender. (They may have gone through a lot to reach this point). And suggesting that the world is a better place if such people are just left alone to live as that gender.

And that sounds perfectly reasonable.

At the other extreme, there are those who argue that self-perception should be sufficient of itself for qualifying as female, for every social purpose. Even if all visible indicators point the other way. That is a philosophical position with which it should be perfectly possible to politely disagree.

[Lagayascienza]

I agree that we cannot have any jock in a frock going into female bathrooms or competing in women's sport. And I think most trans-women understand and accept that.

[Good_Egg]

I agree that we cannot have any jock in a frock going into female bathrooms or competing in women's sport. And I think most trans-women understand and accept that.

I think many would, if they had not been exposed to a quasi-religious ideology which privileges above all else the feelings of those defined as oppressed minorities.

If enough people tell you straight-faced that you're entitled to something you want, it must be very hard not to believe them.

And "misgendering" is the blasphemy law of this quasi-religion. One line of their creed is belief in the objective reality of gender identity.

Those who make a religion of their social conservatism and those who make a religion of their social progressivism are not so different.

[Fried Egg]

I agree that we cannot have any jock in a frock going into female bathrooms or competing in women's sport. And I think most trans-women understand and accept that.

Indeed. But it is the conflation of sex and gender, the suggestion that one's gender identity is just as important an indicator of one's sex (as one's reproductive system), that sex is a spectrum and not binary, that allows for such insanities to come to pass.

It is this kind of thinking that led to the Gender Recognition Bill being passed in Scotland (and fortunately blocked by the UK government) that would have allowed people to be legally recognised as the sex they declare without having to go through any other process (besides "living as a woman" for six months"). And once someone is legally recognised as a woman, it's discriminatory to block access to any form of women's only spaces.

Those who think my thinking about sex is to "black and white" should realise that is to protect women's only spaces. I admit that my position is erring on the side of caution; better that someone like Blair White is denied access to women's only spaces than people like Isla Bryson gains access.

Of course, I'm sure that most would advocate for a more nuanced position in law but the trouble is that the law has to be clear (black and white) and draw broad based distinctions. Probably few women would, in practice, object to someone who no longer has male sexual organs and no history of violence against women being allowed access. But best the law is there, as something they can resort to when they feel unsafe. Rather than the situation we have at the moment where women are taken to court by trans-activists after being denied access to women only spaces (and more often than not winning).