From a consequentialist point of view, option A women = biological sex, option B women = self identified gender, what changes? The overlap between these two sets in terms of the individuals they include, is what 99%? So analysis of e.g education outcomes, is substantially same
-
Well if the proposal for Option B is not coherent enough for us two to work out what it is maybe we are giving it too much credit for being a coherent idea?
I just mean it's "your Option" as in you are putting it on the table, so I'd like you to define it. Is it a thing (in which case what kind of thing) or is it a language game, for the purpose of an assumed greater good?As I said Option A has got a lot going for it in terms of a coherent definition, observable characteristics, explanatory power....
-
-
It's a bit like Illicit Financial Flows definition Paddy
The question is does option B put together two sets of people "some women" + "some not women" and call the new category "women" (why? for what end?)... -
... Or does it put these two categories of people together because they both share a common characteristic "women" which all women (whether bio male or bio female) have, but eg non binary females don't have (is there any proof of this thing? How do I know I've got it?)
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
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.