Maya Forstater

I don’t start with definitions, I start with understanding how to increase happiness. And at the moment, that means championing inclusion, diversity, equality, however people label themselves.

(Side note: I thought we were discussing sex. I think this comment "how do you study anything?" personalised it, attacking me, challenging the very idea of me undertaking research. I don't think that was helpful or polite. I was surprised MF said it M, & RB liked it)

I did not mean to. Quite the opposite. I know you study stuff. You use definitions all the time. You use data which is based on our commonly held held definitions and categories. I am perplexed at your saying definitions are impossible and don't matter.

I believe our previous discussion illustrated that even biological foundations of gender require construction, even if only "at the margins". Identity-based gender requires no construction at the margins.

The circuitous "biological-type" definition you've offered is fundamentally aligned with the notion that biology is destiny. Being "biologically aligned with having the ability to produce eggs at birth" is little different to the notion that "women are defined by egg production."

So it is both more regressive and less coherent than the identity based definition.I have also laid out the costs of your proposed definition to particularly vulnerable women for whom inclusion greatly aids in protection.

If you read the articles I linked to earlier as well as other essays by trans women it is undeniable that they experience misogyny in the workplace and that we should do everything we can to support them https://medium.com/@juliaserano/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c …