Maya Forstater

Can you define it? You are asking to replace a perfectly good definable, objectively, observable thing - sex - with something subjective and undefined.

no I'm not, I have expressed no view (here) about the merits of option A or B

I know Paddy 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?

I don't claim to know, I just meant to refer to whatever it is that the authors of that TJN statement have in mind.

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?

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?)