In the UK, sex is a protected characteristic that enables women, for example, to exclude men from certain protected spaced (prisons, rape crisis centres etc). Such protections require a defintion of what a man and a woman is. This is quite fundamental, no?
-
-
Replying to @lecanardnoir
No, they don't. One can recognise the reality that trans people exist and that, in some areas, like sport and prisons, their rights and inclusion need to be considered in a class of their own. We wrote this about it.https://areomagazine.com/2017/09/27/an-argument-for-a-liberal-and-rational-approach-to-transgender-rights-and-inclusion/ …
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Of course trans people exist, but I suspect their many experiences, motives and presentations do not enable a unified, useful defintion. On the other hand, you appear to not want to recognise the objective, material existence of women? I hope I am wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir
I sent you an essay. I recognise the objective material reality that biological sex is bimodal in teams of reproductive systems, yes, but also that gender comes from a variety of other biological aspects like brains, hormones, genetics etc.
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @lecanardnoir
Andy, are you sure you aren't doubling down a little too hard here? Having known you through skeptical stuff for years and Helen's views widely disseminated and dissected the last few weeks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @theedwardian81 @HPluckrose
I know, I am surprised I am here too right now. The disputable concepts of gender appear to come through various fashionable nonsense ideologies of the various pomo-style theories. So, I am just fascinated as to where this might lead?
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
We've always done this in one way or another. If "He is a feminine man" makes sense to you, you too instinctively see gender as something different to biological organs. It's annoying to discuss and attempt to define sharply tho so I tend not to get into it.
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @theedwardian81
And no I do not use the term gender apart from discussion here, because I have not confidence any listener will share the same conceptual understanding as me. If a shit-show of a word. Any use of the word gender I use, I can replace with a ‘sex’ alternative. e.g.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
This looks like turning into one of those discussions of definitions which does very little to engage with the reality of what is going on with gender identities different from biological sex and which is not yet well understood. We can't define the reality away.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @theedwardian81
I am afraid if we cannot agree on definitions then no meaningful communication can take place between us. We will just be speaking gobbledegook at each other. A shame, but it is late here, so goodnight.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
And goodnight!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.